Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Birmingham Canal Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL,

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PENSION DISALLOWED (J. W. HOLLAND).

Mr. TINKER: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that J. W. Holland, of 15, McAlpine Street, Toronto, Canada, whose case he submitted to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, has been refused a pension; that he is unable to work through his War disabilities and is now a charge on the rates of Toronto, and because of this the Canadian authorities have informed Holland that he and his family will be deported to this country; and what course will he pursue in the matter?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The official information in my possession does not support the suggestion that the man in question is unable to work in consequence of his War disability. I have, however, cabled instruc-
tions directing a further medical examination and I will communicate the result of my further consideration of the case to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

NEEDS PENSION (MRS. S. E. JONES).

Mr. BARKER: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. S. E. Jones, 2, Pond House, Abertillery, Monmouthshire, has been refused a needs pension on the death of her son. ex-Sergeant James Richards, No. 627188, South Wales Borderers; that Richards, when on active service, allowed his mother £1 per week; that he was himself in receipt of a pension up to the date of his death; that his death was attributable to the effects of service; and will he have this application for pension reconsidered?

Major TRYON: I find that Mrs. Jones re-married prior to the death of her son in March, 1925. The liability for her support rests upon her husband, who is in employment. It is understood that the wife and husband have separated, but this fact does not warrant the grant to Mrs. Jones of a pension for which she would not be eligible if she and her husband were living together or if both of them were the actual parents of the soldier.

Mr. BARKER: Has the Minister taken into consideration the fact that this man has always contributed, when he was able, to the maintenance of his mother and that when he was on active service he allowed her £1 a week? In losing her son she is losing her chief support.

Major TRYON: I am prepared to consider any facts which the hon. Member will give me, but the difficulty in the case is the re-marriage of the widow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TWO-SEATER TAXICABS (NEW REGULATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the proposed introduction of two-seater taximeter cabs on the London streets?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the hon. and gallant Member will now be aware, I have
already signed an Order to permit the introduction of two-seater cabs at a lower tariff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I have seen the statement that there has been delay. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some information about this alleged delay in putting these cabs on the street?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The next question deals with that point, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will wait for the reply.

Mr. R. MORRISON: May I ask whether the consent of the right hon. Gentleman is given subject to the condition that the two-seater cabs are in accordance with the requirements of Scotland Yard?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am making a statement on that point on the next question.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 4.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet given his approval to any design for a two-seater taxi-cab; and what is likely to be the approximate cost of building a taxi-cab in conformity with such design?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Approval so far has been given for two designs of two-seated taxi-cabs. In one of these cases, a cab has been submitted and, subject to rectification of certain points, it is practically ready for licensing, In the other case, drawings have been submitted and approved, and the vehicle, it is understood, is in the course of construction. I am not in a position to reply to the last part of the question.

Sir F. MEYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the police regulations are not such as to make the cost of these cabs too high?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I am in a position to say that I have, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Police, reconsidered the whole of the existing regulations and specifications in regard to cabs, and it will be possible for a cheaper type of cab to be built and used under the new regulations now being issued.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the new regulations permit of a narrower wheel base?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SPENCER: What right has the Department to fix the price of this service as against any other service performed by anybody else in the country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have the right.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any modifications in the design have been passed by Scotland Yard for the two-seater cabs, and does he contemplate any modifications on the present type of taxi-cab?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At present there has been no demand for any alteration in the design of the old existing taxicabs. As I have said, I have reconsidered, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Police, an adaptation of those specifications to the new type, and new regulations will be issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY INSPECTORS (BIRMING HAM DISTRICT).

Mr. HANNON: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the appointment of a lady inspector to the post of deputy superintending inspector of factories for Birmingham and the district; and if in future, when making appointments to the post of deputy superintending inspectors of factories, he will consider the desirability of appointing a male inspector, preferably with actual experience of the most important industry in the district to which the appointment relates?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The appointment referred to was made by me after very careful consideration. I could rot agree to the suggestion that it is desirable that all the higher divisional posts should be filled by men. Under the present system of organisation, the women inspectors are placed on the same footing as the men, and it is both desirable and necessary that they should share in the higher appointments. If all that is suggested is that in making an appointment the fitness of the inspector should be considered in relation to the particular character of the division that
is already the practice, and was observed in regard to the particular appointment in question. There are, however, various other considerations which have to be taken into account, and which, from the point of view of the general efficiency of the service, may be of equal or greater importance.

Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representations have been made by manufacturers that, owing to the peculiar nature of the trades carried on in these factories, it would be much more appropriate to have a man inspector rather than a woman inspector?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I have had no details as to the reasons why particular Birmingham factories require a man inspector rather than a woman, but if the hon. Member will let me have the reasons I will consider them,

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

HOME OFFICE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 6.
asked the Home Secretary why he has found it necessary to appoint a ceremonial and reception secretary; what are his functions; and whether, in view of the, need for economy, he will reconsider this appointment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This post was created in the course of a reorganisation of my personal staff which, after some months' experience, I found absolutely necessary to cope with the growing volume of work. The duties, which were previously performed by an assistant private secretary at a slightly lower rate of remuneration, consist in arranging ceremonial matters and in assisting me in the transaction of a considerable volume of business with the Lord Chamberlain's Department and other Departments of the Royal Household. I am fully alive to the need for economy, but efficiency [...] also be considered, and I have no hesitation in saying that from that point of view the appointment has fully justified itself.

Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that there has been a great deal more ceremonial since the right hon. Gentleman has been at the Home Office?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; but a great increase of work.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the word "work"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is possible I might give a better explanation of the word, from personal experience, than some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. GREENALL: Are we to understand that the increase of work means an increase in the ceremonial work?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am willing to give all the information I can to the House. The House is aware that the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway and I have been recently discussing stage plays and matters of that sort, the work of which has largely increased, belonging to the Lord Chamberlain's Department. They have to be dealt with by me because the Lord Chamberlain is not in this House.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that an appointment of this kind should have been made years ago?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 7.
asked the Home Secretary why he has found it necessary to appoint liaison officers; how many there are, what are their functions, and whether, in view of the need for economy, he will reconsider these appointments?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The sum shown in the Home Office estimates under this head represents the small retaining fees paid to four ex-chief officers of police who have been nominated to advise four of the Civil Commissioners on police matters. In the other Civil Commissioners' Divisions, serving police officers act in a similar capacity without special remuneration.

STATIONERY OFFICE (CINEMATOGRAPH STAFF).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Stationery Office requires a cinematograph staff; what functions it fulfils; and whether, in view of the need for economy, he will consider bringing this service to an end?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The temporary cinematograph staff which, for reasons of administrative convenience, is attached to the Stationery Office, is concerned with the storage and preservation of films (of which a large number are for a variety of purposes in the possession of Departments), precautions against fire and deterioration and the making of copies, assistance in connexion with import ditties, leasing out Government films for which there is a public demand, and advising on contracts, questions of copyright, etc. I do not think that at present A would be an economy to dispense with this small staff in which a large volume of necessary work is centralised.

Mr. PENNY: Could not some of these films be exhibited to hon. Members?

Mr. WELLS: Are these films all of British production?

Mr. McNEILL: I must have notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not one of the functions of this Department to arrange for the taking of public films of ceremonies and so forth, and does not payment accrue; and in that case is there not an actual profit?

Mr. McNEILL: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to put down that question.

EX-SERVICE TEMPORARY CLERKS (EXAMINATION).

Mr. TOWNEND: 37.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what instructions were issued to reporting officers in connection with the allocation of Departmental marks in the recent examination for ex-service temporary clerks, and of what nature; what was the aggregate pass mark at the recent examination for ex-service temporary civil servants; and how many unsuccessful candidates obtained that percentage of marks in the literary subjects of the examination?

Mr. McNEILL: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the form issued by the Civil Service Commission. The aggregate pass mark was 625 as compared with a maximum of [...]. I am afraid that I cannot say hew many of the unsuccessful
candidates obtained 62½ per cent. or more in the educational subjects of the examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT (INSPECTOR).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether the appointment of an inspector under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, is a new office; what are the total annual emoluments from the position; and whether the appointment carries a pension?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. The appointment was made to fill a vacancy caused by the retirement of the previous inspector, The total annual emoluments of the post, including Civil Service bonus, are £1,023 9s., and the appointment is pensionable.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the officer appointed to this position already a pensioned officer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me notice of that I will let him know.

Mr. FENBY: Is the official a qualified veterinary surgeon?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That again, I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTION (WILLIAM METSON).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Metson, who was sentenced on 25th March last at Greenwich Police Court to three months' imprisonment for stealing chocolate value ld. from an automatic machine; whether Metson had any previous convictions registered against him; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he can see his way to grant some remission of the sentence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention had not been called to this case. I find on inquiry that Metson was convicted on two charges, relating to two different dates, and that, although he has no previous conviction recorded against him, the facts of the case are not such as to warrant my recommending interference with the sentence passed by the Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS ACT (JAPANESE STUDENT).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a Japanese student who was arrested for failing to register under the Aliens Act, and in whose possession was found a quantity of documents prohibited in this country, and also his credential from the Communist party in America transferring his membership to that party in Russia; that this student was sentenced to imprisonment and recommended for deportation; and that, on appeal, the Recorder of Liverpool, while upholding the conviction, substituted a fine for the sentence of imprisonment and cancelled the recommendation; and whether it is now proposed to take any steps to deport this student, who was proved to have gone straight to Communist headquarters in Liverpool upon landing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to the case of Kawashima, the circumstances of which are substantially as described in the question. I do not propose to allow this alien to remain in the United Kingdom, but in view of the action taken by the higher Court with reference to the recommendation for his deportation I have decided to afford him an opportunity of leaving the country under his own arrangements, which I am informed he proposes to do.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that the mere fact that a foreigner belongs to the Communist party is a reason for deporting him?

Mr. HARRIS: Was it not definitely established that this Japanese did not belong to the Communist party?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No "mere fact" is taken as a cause for deportation. I have considered the whole facts of the case. With regard to the second question, it was not absolutely determined one way or the other. There was a good deal of information found in his possession, and it was believed that he was a member of the Communist party. At all events he is desirous of leaving the country.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: If the right hon. Gentleman himself were arrested would there not be found in his possession quite a lot of Communist literature which would render him liable to the same thing?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Government have arrived at a decision on the recommendations of the departmental committee on the University of London?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Yes, Sir. The Government are in general agreement with the Committee's recommendations, and they propose to introduce legislation for the purpose of setting up a statutory Commission for the University accordingly.

SCHOOL LEAVING AGE.

Mr. PENNY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of allowing juveniles to leave elementary schools when they reach the age of 14 instead of requiring them to remain until the end of the term in which they reach that age, so that they will stand a better chance of being absorbed in industry?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me on 29th March last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. PENNY: If this cannot be done, will the Noble Lord consider granting two additional dates of leaving, one in the middle of February and the other in the middle of September?

Lord E. PERCY: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer I have mentioned, he will see that this question comes within the purview of a Committee set up by the Minister of Labour and myself.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS (INSPECTION).

Mr. GILLETT: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state what powers the Board of Education possess of inspecting private venture schools for children under 14 years of age; whether those powers have been exercised; and, if so, to what extent and with what results?

Lord E. PERCY: My Department have no power to inspect private schools unless they are invited to do so. 214 schools have declared themselves open to inspec-
tion by the Board under Section 147 of the Education Act, 1921, and the reports on schools so inspected are sent to the local authority concerned. In addition, a number of schools have invited the inspection of the Board under the provisions of Section 134 (3) of the Act, and the results of the inspections have been notified to the schools.

SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. DENNISON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the latest returns of children attending secondary schools in Birmingham show a low percentage compared with most other cities, and that, as a result of recent Circulars received from the Board, the Birmingham education authority have been reducing the new provision which they had been intending to make for secondary education; and whether he will press the local authority to make increased provision?

Lord E. PERCY: It is true that the percentage of pupils in secondary schools in Birmingham is lower than the average percentage for the county boroughs as a whole, but I am surprised that the hon. Member should suggest that the authority have reduced the new provision that they had been intending to make. He must, presumably, be aware that I have already sanctioned the provision at King's Norton of a new girls' school, which is now in course of erection. I hope shortly to announce my decision as regards the proposed mixed secondary school at Saltley, and the provisional programme prepared by the education committee for t he years 1927–30 provides for an addition of 2,590 secondary school places.

Mr. DENNISON: Has the Noble Lord seen the statement made by the chairman of the Birmingham Education Committee, deploring the fact that, in consequence of the request for cuts, they have been unable to extend the secondary education facilities Birmingham?

Lord E. PERCY: No. I have not seen that statement, but I have given the hon. Member the facts.

Mr. DENNISON: Those are facts also.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have put in hand schemes for slum clearances under the Housing Act of 1919 and subsequent Acts?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Since 1919, 73 local authorities have submitted schemes for dealing with slum areas and I have information of 33 other local authorities who have schemes in preparation or under consideration. 85 schemes relating to 67 local authorities have been confirmed.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the slow progress in dealing with slum property, can the right hon. Gentleman state how soon he will be able to take any action to expedite the clearance of slums?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I do not think I can take any action.

BUILDING STATISTICS.

Mr. THOMSON also: 18.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been completed to date under the 1919 and subsequent Housing Acts and how many are at present under construction, giving separate figures for municipal and private enterprise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the 1st instant, 238,219 houses had been completed in England and Wales under the 1919 and subsequent Housing Acts by local authorities and 153,289 by private enterprise. The numbers under construction on the 1st instant were 45,920 by local authorities and 35,088 by private enterprise.

BUILDING BY-LAWS (RURAL AREAS).

Mr. FENBY: 27.
asked the Minister of Health how many rural authorities have adopted building by-laws; and how many have no building by-laws in operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures are 507 and 140, respectively.

SHOREDITCH (ONE ROOM HOMES).

Mr. THURTLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if he is in a, position to state the number of families of four or more persons in Shoreditch who are living in
homes of one room; the total number of such persons; and the percentage such number bears to the population of the borough?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the Census of 1921, the number of private families of four or more persons occupying one room per family in Shoreditch Metropolitan Borough was 649; the population therein was 2,881, representing 2.76 per cent. of the total borough population.

AIR STREET, REGENT STREET.

Mr. RYE: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the high buildings now in course of erection in Air Street, Regent Street; and whether steps will be taken to prevent similar buildings being erected on Crown land which will restrict and diminish the free access of light and air, and thereby injure the health of residents?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. The buildings in question form part of the rebuilding scheme for the Regent Street quadrant, which is being carried out in accordance with designs passed by the local authorities concerned and approved by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The Commissioners have received no complaints on account of the height of the buildings, which conform to the requirements of the London Building Act. It is not a residential area, and I am advised that there is no ground for the anxiety suggested in the latter part of the question.

Mr. RYE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that no action can lie against the Crown, with the result that Crown lessees are erecting buildings to the extreme detriment of their neighbours?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 19.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken to ensure that the list of insured persons in respect of whom a panel doctor receives the State grant is kept up to date and accurate; and whether there have been any, and, if so, how many, instances in which insured persons who have died or left this country, or ceased to be insured persons, have not been taken off the live registers of such doctors?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that it is impossible to deal with the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend within the limits of an answer to a question. I am, however, furnishing him with a note explaining the system adopted in the matter to which he refers, and I shall be happy to furnish any further information within my power should he desire it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 21.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows who are now receiving the widows' pension; the number of children in respect of whom allowances are being paid; and the number of orphans who are benefiting under the Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the latest figures available the number of widows in England, Wales and Scotland in receipt of pensions is 130,062, and the number of awards in respect of orphans is 8,495. In view of the continued heavy pressure of current pensions work, it has not been possible to extract the figures of the number of children's allowances included in the widows' pensions and of the number of orphans covered by the awards, but I will send to the hon. Member the particulars asked for when they are available.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether those figures are not very much less than the estimated figure when the Bill was being discussed in this House? Can he explain why the applications are fewer than the number anticipated?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. FENBY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether full instructions have been sent to Old Age Pensions Committees with regard to the operation of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to send to such committees all necessary instructions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 13th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Peebles and Southern.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE ANNUITIES.

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether the calculations which were being made last year to reduce within just limits the premiums collected from Post Office annuities reached a stage at which a percentage can be indicated for the arithmetical adjustment to modern conditions of tables previously adopted by the Government for the duration of life, for the risk of accident, and for health insurance; and can the amount be stated in regard to payments to be withheld under the Economy Bill of accumulations due to the use of tales over favourable to the funds taking the risks?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part I would refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Departmental Actuarial Committee to the Royal Commission in which he will see the views of the Actuaries with regard to the tables applicable to modern conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT INSPECTION.

Mr. FENBY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health how many health authorities have appointed qualified whole-time meat inspectors; how many have appointed part-time qualified meat inspectors; and how many have attached the duty of meat inspection to officials not specifically qualified for the purpose?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot give precise information on these points. Except in a few cases, where veterinary surgeons have been specially appointed for the purpose, meat inspection is usually performed by sanitary inspectors, and I am glad to say that the number of these officers who, in addition to the ordinary training in meat inspection, have obtained a special qualification in the subject, is rapidly increasing. In most of the principal boroughs and in many of the larger urban districts whole-time food inspectors possessing this qualification are employed.

Mr. FENBY: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfied with the efficiency of the meat inspection throughout the municipalities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not say that I am perfectly satisfied, but I am satisfied that the efficiency is rapidly increasing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS EXAMINATION.

Mr. PENNY: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the methods adopted by certain Customs officers at our ports result in keeping visitors from this country to the detriment of trade; and whether he will provide additional senior officers of experience to see that this work is carried out without unnecessary annoyance and delay?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am not aware that the circumstances are as stated in the first part of the question. The inconvenience caused to travellers by Customs duties is certainly much less in this country than in any other. But if my hon. Friend will furnish me with details, I will have inquiry made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES (BONUS SHARES).

Mr. THURTLE: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the recent decision in the House of Lords to the effect that the distribution of a company's reserves, or part thereof, is not subject to Super-tax, even if such distribution is in such form as to make it equivalent to a cash payment; if he is aware of the possibilities of Super-tax evasion opened up by this decision; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question raising a similar point asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle East on the 9th March. At the same time I would observe that in the case to which the hon. Member appears to refer the Shareholder had in fact no option to take a cash payment.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as the law now stands, a company may make a bonus distribution of debentures to a Super-tax payer, and those debentures may afterwards be redeemed for cash, and no Super-tax is payable on them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hesitate to answer, without notice, questions which relate to interpretations of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.

Mr. TOWNEND: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been received from the British Dyestuffs Corporation in compensation for the Government shares in that corporation which have been cancelled; and whether this capital sum has been treated as revenue for the current year or has been applied to the repayment of the National Debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The sum of £600,000 has been received from the corporation, and paid into the Exchequer as Miscellaneous Revenue in accordance with the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the arrears of Income Tax and of Super-tax outstanding on the 31st March, 1925, and on the 31st March, 1926?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The latest revised Estimates of the amounts of Income Tax and Super-tax due to be paid (namely, amounts in respect of which a demand for payment had been issued) but not paid at the 31st March, 1925, are as follow:





£


Income Tax
…
…
33,645,000


Super-tax
…
…
25,000,000


Sufficient time has not yet elapsed since the close of the financial year to enable me to furnish similar Estimates of the arrears of Income Tax and Super-tax outstanding at the 31st March, 1926.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether the amounts outstanding are being reduced?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that we are overtaking them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET (SINKING FUND).

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the sinking funds referred to in
his last Budget speech, if he will state how far up to the 1st April has the contribution to the sinking funds been below the estimate; and whether he will give a pledge that sinking funds will not be added to by borrowing when money from annual taxation is not available?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has not now long to wait for the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDITS.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the present position of the negotiations for the establishment of easy credits for agriculturists?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject.

Mr. WELLS: Can the Minister say if any applications have been received?

Mr. GUINNESS: A certain number of letters have been received but we do not expect to receive applications until we are in a position to announce details.

Mr. SPENCER: Is it not the fact that what the farmer wants is not credit, so much as prices?

Mr. GUINNESS: A good many farmers are in need of credit because they are in a difficulty as to stocking their land.

FRENCH CHERRIES (IMPORT).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of his discussions with the French Government in regard to the prevention of the importation of cherries which are infested with maggots?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many sugar-beet factories have obtained advances under the Trade Facilities Act; and whether he will give their names in each case, with the respective amounts of capital involved?

Mr. McNEILL: The State does not make advances under the Trade Facilities Scheme; its assistance is given in the form of guarantees in respect of loans raised for capital expenditure. The guarantees which the Treasury had expressed its willingness to give in connection with sugar beet to the 31st March, 1926, were:

£


Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
370,000


West Midland Sugar Company, Limited
150,000


Orchard Sugar Company, Limited
80,000


Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
865,000


Central Sugar Company, Limited
185,000



£1,650,000

THE NUMBER OF SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED TO DATE, AND THE AVERAGE COST PER HEAD IN EACH CLASS OF SCHOLARSHIP IS AS FOLLOWS:—


—
Number of Awards.
Average cost per head of completed Scholarships.
—





£



Class I
…
38
686
Fees for tuition, examinations, etc, £161. Maintenance (including outfit, travelling, etc.), £525.


Class II
…
45
373
Fees for tuition, examinations, etc., £79. Maintenance (including outfit, travelling, etc.), £294.


Class III
…
395
94
Fees for tuition, board, residence and laundry, £67. Clothes, subscriptions text books, travelling, pocket money etc., £27.




478




The average costs given above are based on the actual amounts spent on completed awards, and the figure for Class I relates to three-year scholarships, as none of the four-year scholarships has yet been completed.

I have asked the Central Scholarships Committee to examine the working of the scheme during the experimental period which ends this year, and to formulate, for my consideration, their views upon its future.

SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the scholarships granted as a result of the £1,000,000 grant made on the repeal of the Corn Production Acts, he will state the number of scholarships awarded to date in each class, together with the cost per head of each class of scholarship, showing how the figure is made up in each instance?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of scholarships awarded to children of agricultural workers under the Ministry's scheme of scholarships; the number in each of the three classes, and the cost per scholar in each class; what expenses are covered by the costs involved; and whether it is proposed to continue the scheme?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to give time to the consideration of the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Bill, which has been introduced into another place during the present Session; and if he is aware of the urgency of this matter, both from the point of view of the health of the community and the losses caused by damage through the pollution of the atmosphere?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the importance of the subject, and hope that time will be found for passing this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EXTENDED HOURS.

Mr. AMMON: 47 and 48.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) the estimated cost of the extended hours of opening of post offices and the amount of business during the extended hours; and whether the business transacted justifies the extra expense;
(2) whether he is aware that certain public authorities have declared that the extended hours of opening of post offices is unnecessary in their districts; and if he will take steps to act on such recommendations?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I regret that full information as to the cost of extending the hours of business at post offices and the amount of business transacted is not at present available. I have received one or two representations from public authorities in the sense indicated but I am not satisfied that axe use made by the public of the additional facility is insufficient to justify its continuance.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has this extension been made necessary by the policy of the Department, in closing subsidiary post offices.

Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir, it has nothing to do with that question at all. There has been a wide demand, and the Postmaster-General has been able to meet it to a certain extent.

Mr. AMMON: Does not the Department take account of the wishes of the local authorities in regard to the half holiday, and should not those wishes have equal weight in reference to increased hours?

Viscount WOLMER: We always do attach great weight to representations by local authorities. I think we only received representations from three local authorities that these extended hours were not needed.

Mr. FENBY: Will this policy of the Department result in an earlier delivery of letters in the morning?

SUB-OFFICE, FENTON.

Mr. AMMON: 49.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the recent, death of the sub-postmaster of the sub-office at Fenton, Staffordshire, he will now consider the question of raising this office to the status of a branch office, having regard to the increase of work, that it serves a population of 30,000, and that there are no adequate postal and telegraph facilities in Fenton?

Viscount WOLMER: I have recently considered this question, and find that the circumstances do not warrant any alteration of status, but I am making inquiry whether any improvements in the public facilities can be effected.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE AIRCRAFT (MIRRORS).

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether service aircraft are provided with a system of mirrors to give all-round vision to the pilot and avoid collisions in the air by methods practised in the street; and, if not, whether steps will he taken to diminish the chances of loss of life of pilots by such like expedients becoming the rule?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): The use of mirrors in service aircraft was investigated during the War and again last year, but it was found that the analogy of street traffic does not apply, owing to the much wider field of vision required if the pilot is to obtain any practical advantage. Such use is open to the objection that the pilot may he temporarily dazzled while flying away from the sun and that each mirror in itself constitutes a further blind spot.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS, SOUTH HARRIS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the urgency of providing land for small holdings in South Harris; whether he is aware that ex-service men have had their ducks and goats poinded for straying upon the large farms and estates; and if he will say
what steps he is taking to make land available for cultivation by the smallholders in South Harris?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Watson): My right hon. Friend has no information as to the alleged poinding of straying stocks. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to his question on the subject of land settlement in Harris, where, I would remind him, land suitable for sub-division and close settlement is very limited, a fact which led the Board of Agriculture for Scotland three years ago to migrate a number of Harris men to holdings at Talisker, in Skye.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the case that 400 men in Harris are now out of work and have no insurance benefit and no opportunities or means whatever of making a livelihood for themselves unless the Board of Agriculture provide land?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member will perhaps put down that question.

RIVER CLYDE (FLOODING).

Mr. SULLIVAN: 54.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that periodically the River Clyde overflows the banks at Bothwellhaugh; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the flooding?

The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend has no information on this subject, but it would appear to be a matter for the riparian owners or others interested in the land to deal with.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that some steps should be taken to get the river embankment raised, so as to prevent this flooding on the land and the consequent public nuisance?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is more a matter for those who are interested in the land.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that danger to human life is involved in this matter, and in view of that fact will he take steps, in consultation with the local authorities, to put an end to this danger and this nuisance?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, will consider any suggestions made to him by the local authorities bearing on the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that the local authorities have consistently refused to do anything, and will he make representations to the local authorities, in view of the statements which have been made here?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware as to whether any representations have been made to the local authority or not.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, ARBROATH.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he has had a protest from the Arbroath Parish Council regarding the growth of local Poor Law burdens owing to the increasing and unreasonable stringency with which unemployment benefit regulations are being interpreted; and what steps, if any, he is taking in the matter?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have ascertained that in the case of Arbroath there has been no increase during recent months in the number of able-bodied persons relieved, and that expenditure on relief of able-bodied unemployed in the parish for the period from the 15th May, 1925, to the present date is in fact less than it was for the corresponding period in the previous financial year. I do not therefore propose to take action as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARREST OF BRITISH TRAWLERS, ICELAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the British trawlers "St. Amant" and "Thomas Hardy," of Hull, and one trawler from Grimsby, which are reported to have been arrested by a Danish war vessel while fishing off Iceland; and what steps he is taking to effect their release?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Yes, Sir. I am informed that these three vessels were arrested on the 9th of April and that the two former were released on the 11th of April. Immediately on receipt of this information my right hon. Friend sent telegraphic instructions to the British Consul at Reykjavik to furnish a full report on these cases, together with copies of the Court records.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trawlers fishing off Iceland are being continually interfered with, and will he now consider making representations to the Icelandic authorities on this subject?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is now making very full inquiries into the whole position.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make inquiries into the case of the steam trawler "Waldorf," of Grimsby, recently fined by the Icelandic authorities the sum of £318 in English currency, in addition to having her catch and gear, valued at £685, confiscated for the alleged offence of having her gear in very bad disorder whilst within the Icelandic territorial waters; and will he further obtain a full Report of the Court proceedings?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has already instructed the British Consul at Reykjavik to report fully on this case and to transmit a copy of the Court proceedings.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to see the Report when it arrives?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUSE DEPOSITS, RURAL AREAS.

Mr. RYE: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of bringing in legislation which will strengthen the powers of local authorities in rural areas and enable them to prevent the deposit of refuse and other offensive matter in public places and so maintain local amenities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not satisfied, on present information, that further powers would be of any great practical advantage, but I am prepared to consider, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, any further evidence that may be brought to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES.

Mr. WELLS: 43.
(for Mr. EVERARD) asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new artificial silk companies have been formed, the amount of authorised capital subscribed, and the number of factories that have been erected or are in the course of erection since the Silk Duties were imposed?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Since the 1st July, 1925, 12 companies, with an issued capital of something over three millions sterling, have been registered, with the manufacture of artificial silk as the primary object. As I stated on Tuesday, 10 artificial silk factories have been started, of which five are in the experimental stage and five are producing; six others are expected to be started shortly.

Mr. WELLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many additional people have been employed in these factories which have been started?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot say that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any company negotiating with the Government regarding the Argyll Motor Works for a silk factory in Alexandria?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Gentleman should give notice of that, and will he put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that there are five additional factories now being negotiated, can he say if any of those additional factories are situated in Dumbartonshire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, I am sure I shall be able to answer him. Out of my head, I cannot.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the Government commitments in regard to Dumbartonshire, would it not be well if the right hon. Gentleman made a pronouncement, seeing that at the recent by-election this was made a chief subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY CAMPS, DEVONPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the serious housing shortage in Devonport and its vicinity, he can state what the intentions of his Department are with regard to the Ernesettle Camp?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The huts at Ernesettle Camp, which are at

BARRACK ACCOMMODATION at DEVONPORT as on 1st March, 1926.


Barracks, etc.
Accommodation.
Occupation.


Married.
Single.
Married.
Single.


Raglan Barracks N
…
…
1
710
1
682


Raglan Barracks S.
…
…
38
720
37
435


Government House
…
…
2
—
2
—


Mount Wise Barracks
…
…
7
70
7
29


R.E. Yard
…
…
3
—
3
—


6, George Street
…
…
4
—
4
—


Granby Barracks
…
…
103
247
100
168


Military Hospital
…
…
4
75
4
55


Military Families Hospital
…
…
—
1
—
1


Bull Point Barracks
…
…
2
69*
2
—


Picket Barracks
…
…
1
—
1
—


*The single men's accommodation is gradually being converted into Married Quarters.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL SHORT SERVICE TRAINING, DEVONPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 65.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what type of training it is proposed to give short-service seamen in the St. Budeaux Camp, Devonport; and how long this training is to last?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The question of the use of St. Budeaux Camp for training of short service seamen is now under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of training seamen get in this camp?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question is under consideration. I am not sure
present let to civilians, have been offered, with the land, on lease to the local authorities, but no reply has yet been received from them.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many single and married men, respectively, there is accommodation in Devonport under the War Office, specifying the barracks, etc.; and to what extent this accommodation is now in use under each of these heads?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

whether they will go to that camp or whether they are provided for elsewhere.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider allowing this encampment to be used for housing purposes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is because I am considering it that the question cannot now he definitely answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDNANCE FOREMEN, INDIA (PASSAGE FACILITIES).

Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can now make any statement as to the decisions reached in the discussions between his Department and the Government of India on the subject
of the promised passage concessions and educational facilities to the European foremen in the ordnance factories and arsenals of India; and whether he will take into consideration the anxiety of the members for a settlement, in view of the fact that they originally presented their requests through the proper channels two years ago?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The matter is still under consideration, but I am taking steps to expedite a decision, which I hope will be reached in the near future. I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as it is arrived at.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is the Noble Lord aware that great hardship is being caused by this delay, that these European foremen are unable to obtain passages in India at short notice, and that unless it is definitely settled at an early date, the hardship will go on and will increase?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not prepared to admit that the delay could be avoided, but I recognise the facts brought to my notice by my hon. and gallant Friend, and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is taking steps to expedite a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (EDUCATIONAL WORK).

Mr. DENNISON: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will publish, in a White Paper or otherwise, details of the educational work now being done in each one of His Majesty's prisons; and whether he will see that, in the next Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners, special attention is paid to the value of educational work done in each prison?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think any useful public purpose would be served by publishing as a White Paper details of the educational work of each prison. The subject was dealt with at reasonable length in the last Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners, and I should not feel justified in asking them to devote to it in their next Report the amount of space entailed by the hon. Member's suggestion. One has to have regard to economy.

Mr. DENNISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the educational progress?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have personally investigated it myself, I have been to many prisons and seen the kind of education given, and very good work is certainly being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.

MEMBERS APPOINTED BY CROWN.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 56.
asked the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household the names of the five members of the General Medical Council who were appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Privy Council, with the dates of their respective appointments, and the dates of their respective registration as medical practitioners?

Major HENNESSY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): As the reply is of some length, I propose, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The names of the live members of the General Medical Council nominated by the Crown with the advice of the Privy Council under Section 7 of the Medical Act, 1886, are:—

For England:

Sir Francis Henry Champneys, Bart., M.D.
Sir George Newman, K.C.B., M.D.
Sir Nestor Tirard, M.D.

For Scotland:

Sir William Leslie Mackenzie, M.D.

For Ireland:

Sir Edward Coey Bigger, M.D.

Sir Francis Champneys was originally appointed on the 23rd May, 1911, and was re-appointed for further periods of five years in 1916 and 1921. The date of his registration in the Medical Register is the 4th March, 1875.

Sir George Newman was originally appointed on the 9th October, 1919, and re-appointed for a further period of five years in 1924. Date of registration, 10th November, 1892.

Sir Nestor Tirard was appointed on the 3rd March, 1922. Date of registration 15th May, 1876.

Sir William Leslie Mackenzie was appointed on the 28th October, 1922. Date of registration 27th October, 1888.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger was originally appointed on the 24th January, 1917, and re-appointed for a further period of five years in 1922. Date of registration 15th December, 1883.

PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 57.
asked the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household if the Lord President of the Council will consider the advisability of setting up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate and report upon the constitution and working of the General Medical Council, which was set up by the Medical Act of 1858, with a view to bringing the work and authority of the Council more in accordance with the trend of modern ideas and practice?

Major HENNESSY: I beg leave to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave him, on behalf of the Lord President of the Council, on the 8th December last, on this subject.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of the great feeling throughout the country engendered by a recent decision of this Council, and will he give us some assurance that the Privy Council will take steps to look into the matter?

Major HENNESSY: Yes; I am aware that this question has been taken up with energy by certain sections of the Press. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' WELFARE FUND (HOSPITAL GRANTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many grants have been made out of the Miners' Welfare Fund to assist in the erection of new hospitals or to extend existing hospitals; the districts where the grants were made; and the amount of such grants?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): Thirty-one allocations have been made out of the Miners' Welfare Fund to assist in the erection of hospitals or to extend existing hospitals in the districts of Fife, Northumberland, Durham, North Wales, West Yorkshire, South Derby, Warwickshire, Forest of Dean, and South Wales. The total amount of the allocations is £53,720. I am sending the hon. Member a detailed list of the schemes.

Mr. SPENCER: Does that include convalescent homes?

Colonel LANE FOX: I think the hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S GUILD OF EMPIRE DEMONSTRATION.

Mr. LUNN: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether the horses ordinarily used by the police in London are the property of the Metropolitan Police Force; if so, whether the use of these horses has been granted to the organisers of the demonstration to be held in London on Saturday, under the auspices of the Women's Guild of Empire, and, if so, on what. grounds?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and to the second part "No."

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was given out in the Press yesterday that these horses, which are ordinarily used by the police in London, are to be used in this demonstration, and may I further ask him if he is aware that it is a slander on the miners to say that large numbers of miners' wives are coming up?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. LUNN: I think I ought to be allowed to say on a point of this sort, that this has been published, and that it is a matter of public interest.

Mr. SPEAKER: If we spent our time contradicting the newspapers, we should be very full up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask the Leader of the House if he is in a position to say what business the Government propose to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday until a quarter-past eight, we shall consider further the Economy Bill. The business for Thursday will be announced later.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say when he will make a statement on the proposed Ministry of Defence? I believe it was promised soon after we re-assembled after Easter.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. If I remember rightly, what I told the House was that I should be very pleased to make such a statement when that subject came up for Debate. I always said

it should come up on one of the Estimates. I shall be very glad to deal with it then.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it intended to take the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I hope so, but I have not included it in the business I have read out. I have already said that the business for Thursday will be announced later.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 111.

Division No-150.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hume, Sir G. H.


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurd, Percy A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Apsley, Lord
Duckworth, John
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Atkinson, C.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jacob, A. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ellis, R. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
England, Colonel A.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bennett, A. J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bethel, A.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Betterton, Henry B.
Fermoy, Lord
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brass, Captain W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gee, Captain R.
Loder, J. de V.


Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goff, Sir Park
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Briggs, J. Harold
Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Briscoe, Richard George
Grace, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lumley, L. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gretton, Colonel John
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macintyre, Ian


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Campbell, E. T.
Harland, A.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J A (Birm., W.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Holt, Captain H. P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cope, Major William
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nuttall, Ellis


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Oakley, T.


Penny, Frederick George
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Waddington, R.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Philipson, Mabel
Skelton, A. N.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Preston, William
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Raine, W.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Remnant, Sir James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ropner, Major L.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wolmer, Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Womersley, W. J.


Rye, F. G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Salmon, Major I.
Templeton, W. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Major Sir H. Barnston and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sullivan, Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
West wood, J.


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.



Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson, J.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Captain Garro-Jones; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Haydn Jones.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members
from Standing Committee B: Mr. A. V. Alexander and Mr. Kelly; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Gibbins and Mr. George Hirst.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Sir Robert Gower and Mr. Taylor; and had appointed in substitution: Viscount Elveden and Mr. James Hudson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 14th April.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Transfer from Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund to Exchequer.)

The CHAIRMAN: Under Mr. Speaker's guidance I propose to follow the practice which was adopted in regard to the Report of the Ways and Means Resolution and to allow a general discussion on the first Amendment. That is following the same course which has been pursued on two former occasions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to ask a question. I wish to know if it is your intention, Mr. Hope, to take the Chair at the proceedings to-day in view of what happened in the early part of this morning when a large section of this House lost complete confidence in you continuing in the Chair.

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here at all.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely it is in order, Mr. Chairman, to ask a question like that which my colleague has just put. Has he not a right to ask you this question, because a large section of the House have lost all confidence in you.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if during the general discussion you intend to take you have it in mind to accept a Motion for the Closure when it is proposed from the other side?

The CHAIRMAN: That matter will be dealt with when it arises. I now call upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) to move his Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: Upon a further point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: I have already called upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to know whether it is your intention, if the Closure is moved from the other side by any responsible Minister during the evening, to accept that Motion?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order.

HON. MEMBERS: Name!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If you name the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to-day you will have a few others to name.

The CHAIRMAN: I have called upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. Does he move this Amendment?

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to know if an hon. Member of this House is precluded at any stage from raising a point of Order?

The CHAIRMAN: Three hon. Members have already risen to put points of Order and they were not points of Order at all.

Mr. WALLHEAD: How can you tell whether it is a point of Order until you have heard it?

The CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring to proceed. If any further points of Order arise, I will deal with them.

Mr. STEPHEN: With all due respect—

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out Subsection (1).
In moving this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), myself, and others, I desire to make one more appeal to the Government to give way on this matter and to do justice to the people concerned. [Interruption.] I have listened to these Debates very keenly indeed, and I agree with the remarks that have been made by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends as to the position the Government have taken up. I say here emphatically that, if this proposal is proceeded with, and the Government fail to do justice to these people, there is only one way in which it can be rightly designated, and that is—[Interruption.]

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Hope, to the loud and continued provocative laughter which is being indulged in by Members on the other side, preventing us from hearing what my hon. Friend is saying?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not noticed it, but, if anything of the kind occurs, I will deal with it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With very great respect, may I point out that your attention was directed elsewhere at the time? I am drawing your attention now to the fact that several hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee have indulged in continued mocking laughter during the whole of the time that my hon. Friend has been speaking.

The CHAIRMAN: If there is any such laughter or interruption, I will deal with it.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I was just about to appeal to you, Sir, but my hon. Friend did it for me. I trust that hon. Members will not interrupt others when they are addressing the Committee, and I ask for fairness. I was going on to say that I have listened to my friends who have made eloquent appeals to the Government to withdraw this proposal, knowing, as they must know, that in doing what they are now doing they are hitting at the very poorest of the poor. I listened to the Secretary of State for War yesterday with keen interest, but I failed to find that he produced any argument that would in any way justify what he is proposing to do under this Clause as it stands; in the Bill. He must remember, as we all remember, that there were more than the Government in this matter when this contract was made. He must know that the Army was a party to the contract, that the Navy was a party to the contract, that the Air Force is a party to the contract now—that the soldiers were a large party to the contract, and that the Government, of all people, were the very first of the whole of the:parties to commence paying less than the others into the Fund. There was much discussion in the Debate as to whether it was a fund, or an organisation, or a society, but that, to me, is immaterial; the question is, What does it propose to do?
I would ask hon. Members opposite whether they consulted the approved societies on this matter during the Recess, whether they consulted their constituents on this matter? I venture to think that not one of the working-class population of this country was consulted, either in regard to this Clause or in regard to the Bill as a whole. I want to warn the Government that retribution will come upon them. This proposal can only emanate from the minds of men who have neither faith nor honour behind them, and men without faith or honour are usually mad. One remembers the old saying that those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad. I warn the Government that, if they are banking on the short memory of the ordinary working-class elector, that will not occur in this House, and we will see to it that this is kept green in the minds of the people When the next General Election comes round.
Apart from all that, this sum of £1,100,000 is to be taken from the broken, from the people who are down and out because they fought for their country, and now have no means of living at all except through the Poor Law. We were told during the War that no man who served his country should ever want in this country, but hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the Committee must know that there are thousands of broken men who are receiving nothing but Poor Law relief, although they were told they would never have to appeal to the Poor Law. Their children are going with insufficient boots and clothes, aye, and even with insufficient food—the children of these very men from whom it is now proposed to take something further. I do not know of any more cowardly act than the introduction of this Bill. In connection with it, cowardice has been displayed by the Government on every conceivable occasion. To me, the meanest act of cowardice is the act of attacking those who cannot help themselves. The soldiers are powerless to say even a word against the Government; if they do they are charged with insurrection and put into gaol. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that only too-well, and it makes their task of attacking these people easier than it otherwise would be. Citizens who cannot help themselves ought to be helped by a House such as this. Not only is the soldier attacked, but his children are attacked,
and they cannot by any means make themselves heard. It is left to men with souls to look after the people who cannot look after themselves.
4.0. P.M.
It is proposed here to deplete a fund which was created for the purpose of looking after these people, for the purpose of properly looking after the soldiers who are now serving, and who may need its assistance later. Many of us know, from the actuarial figures, that soldiers who come back from the Army into industry are often broken in constitution, and the ordinary worker has to look after them. This is a proposal to rob them to this extent. I plead with the Government to see the other side of the question. After all, as I have said before, if this be carried, they will suffer in the long run, and I want, if I can, in the few words I have to say to the Committee, to appeal to them to do their best to have this proposal withdrawn. May I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and to the Secretary of State for War, to convey this appeal to the real culprit in this matter, because, after all, as has been well said in this House, they were dragooned into it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at his wits' end to find sufficient money to cover what he did in the Budget of last year, in looking after his friends so well. We remember only too well his words in introducing the Budget, when he referred to the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, and said that the worker had got something out of that Budget. Really, his words meant, "I am going to take back every penny that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Come Valley has given to the worker." Now his Budget will not balance, and his attack is not on persons who can afford it, but on persons who cannot afford to do more than they are doing now. I therefore plead with the Government, and I urge the Government, at once to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they think it wrong to proceed further; and I trust that even now, at this late hour, the proposal we are making to delete this Clause will be accepted and that at least some justice will be done to those men who did so very much for us.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For three days now we have been making an appeal on behalf of the Service men who are affected by the intentions of the Governments as expressed in this Clause. It is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office that the £1,100,000 that he is taking away has been contributed by the sailors and soldiers and partly by the ex-sailors and soldiers. It has also been admitted that the only reason why additional benefits were not given out of this fund was that it was assumed originally that the Fund would not be sufficiently large to give anything more than maternity benefit. It was admitted, when the Act was originally introduced, that the Fund that was in process of accumulation would be earmarked for the benefit of the Service men. How, in those circumstances, can the Government possibly justify taking the money away from the purpose for which it was originally provided? I am sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here, but I am delighted to see the unusual spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government Bench. He has made these extraordinary proposals, and he has never once come into the House and attempted to justify them. The First Lord of the Admiralty, if he were here, would have an opportunity of being reminded what injury has already been done to the Services during the administration of the present Government. Their pay has been reduced, their pension rates are being reconsidered, their marriage allowances have been reduced, and every possible penalty that could be put upon the Services has already been put upon them. There is great distress in the dockyard towns, and nobody knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, because he is being compelled, out of sympathy and necessity, to make some provision for the housing of the population in the constituency which I represent. The greatest misery prevails. The-houses in which the sailors and soldiers live are in a state of great disrepair, and their wives are suffering—

The CHAIRMAN: That is clearly a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is in these houses that the Service men have to live, and their families are being penalised to
a large extent by this Bill. I submit that this money belongs to them and could be used for the purposes of their welfare, and I was endeavouring to establish that it was a case of the utmost necessity to use this money in the Service towns and for the benefit of the Services. For years the Navy has been demanding pensions for widows. It is true that they get a pension now under the Widows' Pension Act, but it is only 10s. a week, and then only in respect of those who have become widows in. the current year. Could not this money lie more justifiably applied in helping the widows of Service men than in taking it for the relief of the Income Tax payer?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Why Income Tax payer?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am asking here why the sailors' and soldiers' money. I will make it Super-tax payer or anyone else, but I think the hon. and gallant Member, as a Service man, will see quite clearly that it is absolutely unjustifiable, however great the need of the country may be, to take this money which belongs to the Service men, which has been contributed by the Service men, and contributed by very great sacrifices, because when the Act was originally introduced the pay of a soldier when he first joined the Forces was 7d., and the pay of a sailor 10d., and out of that meagre sum he was mulcted 1½d per week, which, in. proportion to his wages, was a very much greater sum than was exacted from the civilian. It is not disputed that he contributed; it is not disputed that every penny in this Fund has been accumulated at his expense. Nobody disputes that at all, and there can be no snore justification for taking this money than for plundering private property. If a poor man who is starving steals a loaf of bread, then, however great his necessity, he goes to gaol. If a. trustee misappropriates funds with the administration of which he is charged, he suffers a very severe penalty and goes to gaol for a considerable period. The Government are the trustees of this Fund, and, whatever phrases you choose to use in the matter, there is no concealing the fact that the Government are taking money which more appropriately belongs to the: Services than it belongs to them.
The need of the men in the Services and of their widows and their dependants and of the ex-service men is far greater than the need of the Income Taxpayer, or the Super-taxpayer, or the Government. Another source from which this Fund has been accumulated is the dead. These men did not accumulate this Fund for the purpose to which it is now being applied. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is part of a consistent policy on the part of his Government for injuring the interests of the Service and ex-service men, because during the brief tenure of his office a great deal of harm has been done. to the Service and ex-service men. There has never been a Government which has mulcted them in such severe pains and penalties as this Government. It has closed the dockyards, it has reduced the building programme, it has reduced their pay, it has withdrawn the marriage allowances of officers, it has reduced the marriage allowances of ratings, it has reduced the provision allowance and many other allowances—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must know that it will be out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to this argument.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am only asking him if this is part of a consistent policy to injure the interests of the Service and ex-service men, and I am going to ask him whether, in. view of the fact that there have been so many Measures that have redounded to the disadvantage of the Service, he cannot hold out some hope that provision will be made to repair the damage that has been done by other administrative actions. I am going to ask him whether it is the adament determination of the Government to take this £1,100,000 which is so sorely needed in the Service towns. All that the men have got out of their 1½d. per week has been a donation of £2 to their wives if they have had a child, and that £2 is worth very considerably less than it was before the War. The single men who have also contributed have never had a farthing out of this Fund. Yet you have taken their money to accumulate it. Now, having reduced their pay in order to accumulate this Fond, and having given them no benefit whatever—they cannot get the maternity benefit, because, having reduced their
marriage allowance, they cannot get married, which is one of the principal causes why this Fund has accumulated—you are taking this money away. I appeal to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who is my colleague, to speak up on behalf of the service men this afternoon. I want to know whether she is going down to Plymouth to justify her Government in this matter.

Viscountess ASTOR: Ask your leader.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced this Act, which was intended to benefit the Service men. The Government which the Noble Lady is supporting is intending to take away the benefits which the right hon. Gentleman by his Act conferred. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] That is indisputable. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Clause into the original Act, the Secretary of State for War, who now sits on the Government Bench, got up and thanked him for what he was doing for the Service men, and admitted, if not in so many words, at any rate by implication, that this Act was going to redound to their advantage. Years have passed since then, and now that it promises to redound to their advantage, the right hon. Gentleman, who was so eloquent on behalf of the Service men in those days, uses the influence of his office to take all the advantages away from them. He said on that occasion: "There are these poor men whom I am representing. They cannot write to Members of Parliament; they cannot go on deputations; they cannot discuss their grievances. I am going to get up in this House and speak for them. If there is any doubt as between the Exchequer and the ex-service men, let the benefit. of the doubt be given to the Service men every time." That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He admits that the money does not belong to the Government; he admits that it has been accumulated out of the pockets and on behalf of the Service men. I say to him: "If there be any doubt in this matter, let him give the benefit of the doubt to the Service men."
What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it? Is he going to get up and repeat the same old argument that
the money does not belong to anybody? Is he going to dispute his own Memorandum which he laid before the Commission, and in which he said that the only reason for not giving greater benefits. to these men was because it was doubted whether the fund would be great enough to do so? Why cannot he have the courage and decency to get up and say: "I am taking this money. It is daylight robbery, but I am going to use my majority to take it away from the service men and ex-service man and their dependants. I have no justification. I frankly admit it." The Navy then would say, "Well, here is a good old healthy buccaneer," and they would rather like the right hon. Gentleman for having the courage to call a spade a spade and a theft a theft but I assure him they will not have very much admiration for him in his endeavour to conceal the real intentions of his act and the real effect of his act in a whole maze of phraseology and intricate argument.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole matter. I saw just now that he was having a conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the three days' Debate must have affected the conscience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] It must have convinced him, at any rate, that there would be a very large amount of political wisdom in reversing the course which he is now taking. The First Lord of the Admiralty was also on the Bench for a few minutes. I think he was convinced by the eloquent appeal just made. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) moved the Committee yesterday by drawing a very accurate picture of the distress of these ex-service men and particularly of the 30,000 of them who are too incapacitated to be accepted by any approved society in the country. Here are men who were promised a great many things, who have not a brass farthing in the world, and who will not be accepted by any approved society, and I appeal to the Government even at this late hour on the third day to come to some sense of reason and some sense of honour in the matter and to accept the Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has been a little unfair in saying the ex-service men under this Bill would not get what had
been promised them. He knows they will get what was originally promised them, and they have been assured that they will get all they would get from the best approved societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I cannot commend the Government for this because I am desperately against the whole thing. I am against any economy of this sort when it has to do with the health and welfare of the people. I think the hon. Member's speech was a little misleading. When people criticise the Government for what they are doing, particularly when it has to do with the Navy and the ex-service men, we know perfectly well what are the proposals of the other party. I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnal-von Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) looked a little uncomfortable while the hon. Member was talking about; closing the dockyards, cutting down the Navy and the rest of it. I hope we shall hear something from him later on. It is really not quite honest to make these points against the Government when we know what is the policy of the Labour party and the Liberal party.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the noble Lady not to pursue the same trend of argument for which I stopped her colleague.

Viscountess ASTOR: If you realised how much was made of this in the constituency—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must confine herself to the question before the Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is why I hoped you would have stopped him before he went on. I feel very strongly about further benefits to the ex-service men. We got an assurance yesterday from the Secretary of State for War. All these points that; are being made have been answered. Many of us deeply regret this Bill. We regret that the Government have taken this step, and many of us regret the Bill too. I think it is a very unwise thing and I should not be honest if I sat here without; saying so. We know that a former Member for Plymouth fought hard for the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs brought in, and we hoped it would go on better and improve as the years went on. They say they cannot drop it. We cannot expect them
to as long as we have a Chancellor who is an inheritance from the Liberal party. Heaven knows what we should do if we got one from the Labour party. I beg the Government before they finish with the Bill to give us some assurance that in a year or two, when things get better, they will reverse the whole of these economies.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Noble Lady to confine herself to the Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: I thought we might bring in some points about general economies. I appeal to the Government to realise that, although we have not spoken, many of us feel as intensely as any of the Opposition, and I beg them to make what concessions they can and to assure us that as soon as it is possible the whole of these economies will be reversed.

Mr. MONTAGUE: To me the most extraordinary feature of the defence put up by the Secretary of State for War was precisely the point the Noble Lady has referred to, the statement that the Government are not injuring the service men, but the service man is getting an advantage owing to the fact that a certain reservation is made for the purpose of giving him some extra advantages and bringing him up to the level of the average approved society. Altogether apart from any technical detail, altogether apart from whether there is any technical defence at all possible or at all logical in the matter, surely we ought to consider the question from the standpoint at any rate of the ex-service man, if not of the present serving soldier, sailor or airman. Why should the ex-service man have to put up with the average when he ought to have the best? If the money is there for the purpose of giving the best medical treatment and the best advantages while the service man is in bad health, surely all that was promised to the serving soldier during the War, that he should have the best, that he would be looked after, justifies any Government in all fairness in using the money that is there for that purpose so as to make his medical benefits, etc., at least equal to the benefits of the best society rather than the average society. The money is there. It has been contributed by the serving soldier, by his employers, and by the State. There is
no question about the amount being available to give him the kind of medical and other advantages which would be at least equal to the best type of approved society. I remember when my party was in office there were Members of the present Conservative party who on every possible and almost impossible occasion peppered the front bench of the Labour party with questions as to the rights of ex-service men. There is one Member who is within the precincts and has been throughout the whole of these debates who never lost an opportunity of suggesting that the Labour Government were always against the interests of ex-service men, and never lost an opportunity of bringing up the question of the ex-service men though it might have been miles away from the subject under discussion. That Member made herself the ex-service man's champion and yet the hon. Member for Berwick (Mrs. Philipson) has not been in the Chamber to defend the interests of the ex-service man throughout the whole business.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The hon. Lady is not present, but I have seen her sitting here.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I must accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is plainly impossible for any Member to be at every moment upon the benches here, but I have attended these Debates pretty consistently, and even if the hon. Lady has been here we have not heard her uttering protests, as we did then, about the interests of the ex-service men. The same applies in various degrees to the rest of the members of the Conservative party. They were constantly talking about the ex-service men. What are they doing for him now? They are pretending to give him an advantage by bringing him up to the level of the average approved society. A few years ago nothing, it was said, was too good for the men who fought and bled for this country, who saved this country. Now the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Health and the rest of the defenders of this disastrous policy are using every trivial, technical argument they can in order to rob the ex-service man of what he was promised, and what he is entitled to from the standpoint of what the
general feeling of the country was at the time of the War and immediately after, and what he is entitled to because of the fact that the ex-service men themselves are partners to the creation of this Fund, and that they naturally expected, as everyone else would expect, that when it was agreed that the Admiralty, and the War Office and the Air Force should contribute to a definite fund, the same principles would apply as apply with regard to ordinary insurance of that character.
I confirm what the Mover of the Amendment has said. It is evident already in the constituencies that Ministers, especially upon this question of the ex-service men, are making the biggest mistake in the life of the present Government. I suppose we might say that is something for us to look forward to and to be grateful for. I do not want to take that line. I am not grateful for injustice. But I warn the Government that the people of the country are going to register their disgust at the meanness of the Government. They are prepared to put money in the pockets of millionaires and to steal pennies from the pockets of poor people. We have been charged with being mere advocates of class war because we have said the Conservative party is a rich man's party. Throughout the life of this Government every Bill that has been brought forward involving questions of pension, insurance, taxation and everything else, has shown that they are a rich man's party and one that is prepared to filch all it can from the poor people. We enter our emphatic protest against that policy, and we are determined to fight for all we are worth in spite of your mechanical majority, and if we cannot do much here we will certainly do our best to let the country know.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: It is rather a remarkable thing that in spite of all the humbug and all the cant that we have heard from that side of the House for the last three days—

The CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that these expressions are not Parliamentary.

Captain EVANS: I am sorry if I infringed your ruling by using those expressions, but I think it is within the memory of the House that expressions of that nature have been used on those benches
since this Debate started. But in spite of all this hysterical outburst, in spite of the kites they have flown for the benefit of the East Ham electorate, in spite of their hysteria, it is a remarkable thing that the real representative body of the ex-service men in this country, the British Legion, have not thought it necessary or thought fit to protest against this proposal. Hon. Members opposite know that if their arguments were justified, all Members of this House would have received a circular from this very wonderful association of ex-service men, putting their views before us.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The last time they did it they were insulted.

Captain EVANS: No action of that kind has been taken by the British Legion. When hon. Members opposite taunt us and say that we have been giving wrong descriptions of certain features of the Bill, I would like to know whether they have ever admitted that in this Economy Bill the ex-service men are going to get benefits to which they were not entitled under the Government of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or under the Government of the present Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) thought that this was such an important point, why did they not bring in a Bill to give effect to it when they were in power? The right hon. Member for Derby has admitted that an Act of Parliament was necessary to alter this state of affairs. If he thought that the general taxpayers should not benefit by this money, why did not his Government bring in a Bill to deal with the matter?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Why did not your party do it earlier?

Captain EVANS: The majority of the soldiers who contributed to this fund are no longer in the Army. Some of them, unfortunatey, fell in the War. It is a matter for regret that hon. Members opposite should bring into this Debate such a sacred phrase as "the men who have fought and died," in order to forward the political propaganda of their own party. The majority of the men affected are not in the Army at the present time. I should think that 75 per cent. of them are civilians at this moment. Is not the Government justi-
fied in saying that they, as civilians and as a section of the general taxpayers of the country, should not be entitled to this refund, instead of a certain section or class? There are many things which this Government would like to do and which hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to do, if we could afford it. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has put forward suggestions which would not cost the Government £1,000,000 but £12,000,000. Hon. Members say that money should be spent on this or on that. The sum available is about £1,000,000, because £400,000 is to be used in giving benefit to the ex-service men and to the men who are on the Regular establishment at this moment when they are discharged, to which they were not previously entitled. If hon. Members opposite, who have suddenly taken such an extraordinary interest in the ex-service men, were honest, as they want us to believe they are, they would go to the trouble of drawing attention to the fact that these men are going to get benefits under the Conservative Administration which they did not get under their own Administration.

Mr. THOMAS: We have heard two speeches from the Government side of the House. For days we have pleaded with hon. Members opposite to give expression to their opinions. We felt that they were acting under instructions and that they had been told not to speak. At last, we have had two speeches on which the Government ought to congratulate themselves. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said, in effect, "My contribution to this Debate is that I think this is a rotten Bill. It is a wicked Bill." She says she is uncomfortable about it, that her party is uncomfortable about it, and she hopes they will repeal it. She went so far as to say that the only consolation she got out of it was that the ex-service men were going to get maximum benefit. They are not going to get anything of the kind. Her discomfort will be measured in the wrong Lobby. That is not the attitude of the last speaker. He is not uncomfortable. He says, in substance, "The Noble Lady knows nothing about it. She does not know what she is talking about. Why should she be uncomfortable, when this Bill is really one of the best Bills ever introduced?"
That is the contribution we have had from the other side of the House. I hope the Minister will take some comfort from it. We have had a very interesting lecture on consistency from an ex-Liberal Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I do not object to that, because he ought to be an authority on the subject of consistency. So far as he is concerned, he has tried to demonstrate this afternoon that our opposition is humbug.

Captain EVANS: Hear, hear !

Mr. THOMAS: He says that we have used sacred phrases about the dead and that we have attempted to exploit the ex-service man.

Captain EVANS: Hear, hear !

Mr. THOMAS: He declared as evidence that this proposal is not an injustice to the soldier and the sailor, that no word of protest has come from the British Legion. I presume that the fact that what he calls the representative body of the soldiers and sailors have not protested is the best evidence that he can bring forward in favour of this Clause.

Captain EVANS: What I wanted to point out was that if the British Legion or any other ex-service organization—

Mr. BROMLEY: The British Legion.

Captain EVANS: Well, if the British Legion considered that this was a matter which was not in the interests of the ex-servicemen, they would have taken steps to circulate the Members of this House, giving them their views.

Mr. THOMAS: I accept that general definition, the implication of which is that it is the duty of people who are representative of soldiers and sailors or of approved societies to let Members of Parliament know their feelings.

Captain EVANS: I do not say it is their duty. I say it is the usual practice.

Mr. THOMAS: We may take it from the hon. and gallant Member that it is the usual practice for representative organisations to circulate their views to Members of this House. The hon. and
gallant Member has received a number of communications from the approved societies with regard to this Bill. How did he act upon them? I say with all respect that the British Legion are not the people who deal with this aspect of the question, or know anything about it. The logic of the hon. and gallant Member's argument is that when he receives a communication from people who do know something about things he acts upon it; but when his own constituents remind him that they are suffering and they ask him to act, he ignores the communication, and it is of no avail.

Captain EVANS: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite fair. What I said was, that it was usual in such cases for those interested to communicate with Members of Parliament. I did not go so far as to say that Members of Parliament should act on the views of such people, irrespective of their own opinion.

Mr. THOMAS: It does not follow that if the hon. Member does not receive a communication that he should act the other way. What object was there in quoting the British Legion, unless it was to convey to the House the idea that this is the body that should speak for the ex-soldiers and sailors, and as they have not spoken this proposal must be quite right.

Captain EVANS: If they had felt it was wrong, they would have communicated.

Mr. THOMAS: I would point out that they have nothing to do with it. The argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member is opposed to the actual facts. He asked what the Labour Government had done in the matter, and why they did not introduce a Bill. He could not have been present in the early hours of this morning when an incident happened to the ex-Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who took action in connection with this matter. The hon. and gallant Member is evidently not aware that it was the Labour Government, in their short term of office, who recognised that there were so many anomalies and difficulties to be dealt with in National Health Insurance that the ex-Minister or Health appointed a Royal Commission. The hon. and gallant Member must
surely have been aware that we appointed the Royal Commission, the report of which contained numerous recommendations on vital matters affecting national health. One of our complaints on this Clause is that the House as a whole has never had an opportunity of discussing these recommendations. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will recognise the injustice of the general indictment that he made against us.
Since the first Debate on this Clause, the whole ground of the Government has changed. The person responsible for this Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not been in the House during these Debates.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: He has been present this afternoon.

Mr. THOMAS: And the atmosphere was such that he felt embarrassed and cleared out at once. What was the Government's case as presented by the Secretary of State for War? I ask the House to note the change. The Secretary of State for War, in explaining this Clause, said that the surpluses that we allege are being taken in a way which is robbery were surpluses which the Government themselves had contributed, which they were entitled to take, and that there was no claim of any sort or kind on them so far as the ex-service men were concerned. I do not think I have unfairly stated the matter when I say that that was the defence of the Secretary of State for 'War. He was immediately asked a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He challenged the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, but when the records of the OFFICIAL, REPORT were turned up it was clearly proved that the statement made in this House was that as far as the Government were concerned they were in precisely the same position as any other employer—in other words, the first part of the case goes down. I ask hon. Members opposite when they vote on this and when they have to answer their constituents—for people outside will know about it; there are ex-service men and there are approved society officials who not only know about it, but who know just what is going to happen—to remember that they have got to answer this question. The
Secretary of State for War put in a Memorandum himself the suggestion of additional benefits. What was that a recognition of? It was a recognition that an injustice had been done to the ex-service men in this connection. But it implied something else. It implied that at least the ex-soldier and sailor should be put on an equal footing with the ordinary civilian. Will any hon. Member opposite get up and say that he ought not to be? Dare any hon. Member say that, all things being equal, the soldier and sailor who has now returned to civil life ought not to be in precisely the same position as the civilian? But when hon. Members vote against this, they have got to explain to the ex-service men, to all the soldiers and sailors, their vote. They have got to explain that when they went into the Lobby they voted to take money away that they knew would give them additional benefit that they could not otherwise get unless this money was there. They have got to answer that.
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) said she understood that they would get additional benefits like the others. Let me explain what that may mean. Take two societies. I could give scores of illustrations, but I will give two, and I challenge contradiction from any hon. Member on the benches opposite. Here is a society, well managed, with healthy lives, and a surplus that enables them to increase their sick benefit 2s. 6d. per week, to give an increased maternity grant of 10s., and then to provide half the cost, of dental treatment for families as well as individuals. That is very important, I think there is common agreement as to how magnificent is the value of dental treatment. That is one society; their surplus enables them to give these additional benefits. Then there is another society that through unfortunate epidemics if you like, through a tremendous increase in sickness, situated in a bad district and with all the physical disadvantages, when their valuation takes place find that they have not only no surplus but a deficit. Please observe that 10 per cent. of the societies are in that condition, according to the Actuary's Report. Now the Secretary of State says that the additional benefits that he proposed for the soldiers and sailors is a mean as between those two. He does not even say that he has
to determine what they are. He does not even give any indication of the lines on which they are going to travel. That cannot be denied. Do hon. Members on the other side of the House challenge that statement? If so, I repeat that, so far as the Clause we are dealing with and the effect it will have merely means that those who go into the Division Lobby against us, go in deliberately with the knowledge that these people, according to the Secretary of State, will be deprived of half the additional benefits.

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that the additional benefits are the average benefits?

Sir K. WOOD: I will reply to that later. [Interruption.]

Mr. THOMAS: I shall also have another opportunity of speaking. I want again to emphasise the importance of that question, and I want to draw attention to the tremendous change of front of the Secretary of State himself. I do not know how many Members were in the Committee when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the remarkable way in which this very difficulty which we are now dealing with was even anticipated in the original Act. The present Secretary of State for War was not only an admitted authority, but I say quite frankly that he rendered remarkably good service in the discussion on the original National Health Insurance Bill, and he was recognised in all parts of the House as a great authority. He was acting then in consultation with, and as the spokesman for, a very large number of societies. He had in his mind this very point, and he questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on this point. He was dealing then with the soldiers and sailors, and he was pointing out how they were handicapped and how they had not got strong trade unions and friendly societies to represent them, and he contended that Parliament ought to be more generous because of this very difficulty. He said:
Neither have they been able to appear in the Lobby of the House of Commons,
or to approach Members of Parliament, for they have no organisation. It is true that one of the friendly societies in which servicemen are enrolled -has written to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George), but a majority of the servicemen have had no spokesman at all in connection with the Clause. Therefore, it is all the more necessary "—
and I would beg hon. Members to follow what the right hon. Gentleman said here—
for the Committee to be not only strictly fair, but even a little generous, and if there is any question of doubt it should be given on the side of the soldier or sailor and not to the Treasury.
That is a remarkable forecast of the present situation. "If there is any doubt"—and is there any doubt here that the money that the Treasury is taking is the money that belongs, to put it no higher, jointly to these three people? Yet the interpretation which we have not got from the Government is "Yes, our definition of being generous is to collar the lot!" It is remarkable to contrast the attitude of the present Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) as compared with his attitude when he was Member for Leicester, and sat on the other side of the House, and the attitude of the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) as compared with his attitude when he was Member for Devonport. But there are not so many soldiers and sailors in Cardiff as there are in Devonport.

Captain A. EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know Cardiff at all? It is a seaport.

Mr. THOMAS: I knew Cardiff before the hon. and gallant Member was born.

Captain EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has not been there lately apparently.

Mr. THOMAS: Here is a remarkable illustration. Here is an lion Member who confuses the seamen in Cardiff—

Captain EVANS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is of the opinion that mercantile marine seamen are ex-service men?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, so are railway men. I am dealing with this Clause, and when I draw attention to the difference between Devonport and Cardiff so far as service men are concerned, the hon. and gallant Member begins to confuse Cardiff sailors with Devonport sailors. But here
is the question which was put by the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) and was answered by Mr. McKinnon Wood, who was then Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member asked whether the balance which the men did not use would be absorbed by the State for the general purposes of the whole scheme. Mr. McKinnon Wood replied:
In no case can the value of his contributions he absorbed in the manner suggested, as the special fund will be earmarked for soldiers and sailors.
5.0 P.M.
The special fund, "earmarked for soldiers and sailors," is now collared by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unlike the present Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) I am not going to appeal for anything from the Government. We have been appealing for four days, and at a quarter to nine this morning we got a magnificent concession that amounted to nothing, and when both sides discovered that it amounted to nothing, the Government gave way. That is the only concession we have received, and we say, just as we have said on previous Clauses, that the action of the Government is mean and contemptible. Without any sentiment, it cannot be denied that you are dealing with a surplus belonging to men who died in France. You are dealing with funds created as the result of the unfortunate sacrifice of these men in the War. You started off by saying that this was Treasury money and that it was a State contribution. You refused to tell the House until you were pressed that the State was put in precisely the same position as the ordinary employers of labour. The Actuary's Report says:—
The reserves released in respect of men who were killed during the War or who died as the result of wounds or disease due to the War, have been specially heavy in the case of this Fund, nearly the whole of the contributors to which were serving with the forces in the War.
This is only one of the reasons. The fact that it is dead men's money is not so important as the others.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think the right hon. Member really appreciated what he said. He said that this belongs to men lying in France. That is not a correct statement of the case at all. Only part of it arises in this way.

Mr. THOMAS: I ask hon. Members whether I suggested that the whole of it was belonging to men who were lying in France. I said that part of it belonged to them, and I repeat part of it, and it is admitted that part of it does. I have already drawn attention to the fact that it is so stated in the Actuary's Report. I ask Members if they can be happy in doing this, having now got the admission that some of it is the money of these poor dead men created as the result of their sacrifice. Whether we are Tory or Labour, if in our private capacity we were dealing with a trust that involved dead men's money, the money of soldiers who have risked their lives for us, we would ask ourselves what would be the nearest approach to what these men would desire in order that we might do them justice. In our private capacity the answer that we all would make would be that we should try and give as much comfort and help as possible to those who are left to us. Is not that what we would do in our private capacity? Yet when we are faced with a Government Whip, when it is brought up under the guise of economy, and under the pretext that the State requires this money, although we would all do that in our private capacity, yet we go into different Division Lobbies, knowing in our heart of hearts and consciences what is the right thing. That is my answer to your taunt about insincerity. I would never make capital out of a sacrifice of human life. I would rather see justice done, but when we know that an injustice is dons to these people, it is a moral obligation on us to protect their interests. That is why we are indignant; that is why I say it is a mean, petty act. It will recoil on the Government. They will pay dearly for A. Many Members in this House to-day will have cause to remember it.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I regret that the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) did not conform to the traditional courtesy of this House, and inform me of his intention of mentioning my name in connection with this Measure. I was here until 9 o'clock this morning, and had only left the House to see two constituents into the gallery, when I heard my name mentioned. I only wish to say that I have worked hard and sincerely in the cause of the ex-service men since I have been in this House, and the fact that I have been returned three times, largely
by ex-service men's votes, is sufficient proof of that. I wish to state that my record of work for the ex-service men, not only in my own constituency, but elsewhere, will bear comparison with the record of the hon. Member for West Islington or, I can fully say, of any other hon. Member on the Labour Benches.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I take this opportunity of saying at once that I did not realise, when I referred to the hon. Lady's name, the fact that I was offending against a custom of the House. T extremely regret that I have done that. I should have informed her beforehand that I intended to refer to her. That is a mistake I profoundly regret. I hope the hon. Member will accept that as an apology.

Mrs. PHILIPSON indicated assent.

Mr. HARNEY: I propose in my few remarks to concede, for the sake of argument, that the Minister is technically right when he says the original Act made provision only for minimum benefits being given to this class of men. That be is also technically right when he says that the effect of this Bill is to give something more to the men than they would have had if the Bill did not pass, I will concede that freely. Further, I will not stress the point, so forcibly made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), that to express promises there are very frequently just as strong implications, and that this will be one of the cases where, benefits having been carved out for a particular class of individual, any excess over the purposes mentioned should by implication be reserved for the class that is intended to receive the benefits. I will pass that over and come to the one broad human feature. Do the Government really appreciate the class of persons they are hitting by this effort at economy? Who are they? We are told they number about 30,000. Thirty-thousand without a vote, without a voice, for they dare not speak ! Does not a, sense of manly indignation, even if it were nothing more, rise in everybody when he sees money being taken from that small class just because they are innocuous to injure by a vote and just because they are powerless to defend themselves by their voice? What is the character of those 30,000?
They are those poor fellows shattered by the War, a prey to disease contracted in the trenches, nervous wrecks through shell-shock, too deplorably gone in health to be received by any approved society that hopes to maintain its solvency. If all those men were at all events assured of the wolf being kept from the door by a pension, then there would be a poor justification, but some justification for the action of the Government. Is there a Member of this House who does not, week after week, receive pathetic letters from his constituents, from the wife or daughter of some one of these men, speaking of a poor fellow who entered the Army as a fine young chap, capable of maintaining himself and' those beholden to him, and now a wretched thing hobbling painfully through life while the medical experts are unable to state affirmatively that his condition was brought about through War service, and, therefore, he is turned down by the Pensions Board. There are thousands in the country to-day, who have lost the health they had before the War, and who cannot get pensions, and it is about those poor men that, under the stress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the word goes forth, "If rob you must, rob those who have been shattered for their country's good and arc deprived of even a single penny from the country's purse."
How does it arise that there is this fund at all to pilfer? It is common knowledge, and cannot be disputed, that when the National Health Insurance Act was introduced, having carefully stated the actuarial basis upon which it would be built up as regards the civilian population, the Government were faced with the difficulty that these men had their own doctors to attend to them and that they were not deprived of their wages during their period of illness. The Government of that time felt that they must make special provision for these men and therefore it was worked out that these men, instead of paying 4d., should pay l½d. while the Government, being the only other party instead of being a party with the employer as they were in other cases, should pay another 1½d. At that time there was no war and our Army was a small one. It was felt that with that small sum of money the most they could be given was the minimum benefit. If it was thought at that time they could get additional benefits they would have
got them. What brings about the big surplus out of that tiny weekly contribution? The right hon. Gentleman knows, and realises as well as I do, that it was not primarily through any of these half-dozen reasons set down in this White Paper. It was primarily due to the holocaust of the War. It is a surplus that was never contemplated at the time, because no one ever realised the terrible occurrence that was to take place some years afterwards when men were wiped out in tens of thousands.
That is the surplus you are filching. It amounts to £1,500,000. You say you will be good enough to give £400,000 of it for additional benefits, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the £1,100,000. I would really like an answer to this. The Under-Secretary on the Front Bench is as sympathetic as anybody else, and I ask him to give an answer to this question. What more right has the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take that £1,100,000 than I have? Where is his right? Is it because he is the head of the Treasury? What right has the Treasury to say that they will take a surplus created in this way? Have they any more right to take that surplus than to take the surplus of an insurance company which would be redistributed in the form of a bonus? Has he any more right to take this surplus than he has to take the money from an insurance society? No, but it is a far easier thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in distress to rob the poor-box which is not as safely guarded as the jewel case. He says, "I will take this £1,100,000 because it is my money. I contributed to it." Even on that basis, what right has he to more than half?
If he is going to take up the attitude and say that this is no insurance scheme at all, and that the contributions of the men were not part and parcel of a bargain; if he is going to say that the present which the Government gave they can take back, then why take also those presents which the Government never gave? The men contributed half. Their wages were docked. They gave their work to the country at a certain wage. A portion of that wage was kept back and put into this Fund and it represents at least £500,000 or £600,000 of the amount. What right has the Government to take that money under the plea
put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? His justification is that what the Government gave the Government can take away. Then let it take away what it gave and not take away all the weekly pence paid in by the soldier. We have heard some talk about dead men's money, and I would like to bring home the reality of this. You have these contributions made by the men at the front. Many of them were dying, and if you had asked them where they would like their 1½d. to go, whether they would like to see their payments go into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to aid and assist their colleagues who, though not stricken down definitely and finally, will have to pull along during their later years, I am sure those men would not hesitate to say that that is the way they would like to see their money go. In this Bill the Government is belying what would be the wish of these dying men. The Government proposes to convert this Fund to general purposes instead of allowing it to go to the aid of the colleagues of the men who died.
My last word here, and I intend to say it outside, is this. It is easy enough for a party that has 400 Members, either in the House or in the Smoking Room and the Library, who is not desirous of listening to tirades such as I am giving now, to bring them in at the end of a Debate and then into the Lobby, but which one of them is going to stand on a platform before his constituents and say, "the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money badly and the choice was presented to me of voting a farthing more on Income Tax or of depriving poor cripples wandering throughout the country of the benefits of the purse put up for them in their distress, and I, rather than dock one farthing off what I and my class pay, took away from these poor devils, on a technical point, the additional benefits which were intended for them, and have left thousands of them without pensions and without any insurance scheme." Let any hon. Member opposite say that on a platform and I know what the answer of the electors will be.

Mr. BROMLEY: Before I entered this House I was trained in an exceedingly hard school in battling with the same class which the present Government represents. I speak of the trade union world,
and after many years' experience I have come to the settled and considered opinion that we obtain nothing from the employing and wealthy classes without fighting for it. I came to this House with the sweet delusion that things would be different in this assembly of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, chosen by the constituencies, and I was led to believe from conversations with older Members that the view I held outside had been wrong and that here I should find the humanity of the nation exhibited through its representatives. I believed there might be something in it. Since I have been here I have seen the House in various Moods. I have seen it hilarious. I have seen it benevolent to speakers who have been haltingly trying to put a case before it. I have seen it exceedingly brutal with speakers who, out of class hatred, it did not desire to hear. But I have never seen such an exhibition of callous heartlessness as on the discussion of this paltry £1,100,000. Some of us have only been away on private business for a few hours after sitting all last night. Some of us sat through the other long all-night sitting, and we know that no voice was raised from the other side in support of the Measure. Two hon. Members have spoken to-day, and I regret they are not in their place at the moment because I must refer to them. Look at the benches opposite where there should be 400 occupants, although there was an all-night sitting last night. We on this side are present, and you must remember that 13 of our number have been excluded from sitting in the House.
I want to say a word about the callous view of those who profess to be sympathetic towards Service and ex-service men. Some hon. Members on these benches have spoken feelingly with regard to it. I am not an ex-service man, I was never good enough to be a soldier, and I shall make a very poor one when the next war comes along. Therefore, I am not speaking because I belong to the class that is suffering, and I do not wish to use strong language as I am going to make an appeal before I sit down. But I can only describe it as real dishonesty to a suffering class of the people that has not an opportunity of properly defending itself. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), as usual when speaking on any Measure,
devoted a greater part of the time to a tirade against the occupants of these benches, and put what I believe is the Government view—that these service and ex-service men will get what they were promised. I am the secretary of an approved society, and what we promised is much less than what our members are now obtaining, due to our efficient and economical management. Are the service and ex-service men, because of their unfortunate position, to get less than other people who have now more than they were promised? I notice that the Noble Lady said there was much feeling in the constituency. In other words she was having a bob each way. She is going to vote to the party Whip, but she has made a speech that will he read by her unfortunate constituents. I also want to say a word about the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), a very worthy representative of the benches opposite, who again delivered a tirade accusing hon. Members on these benches of humbug and cant. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) entirely disposed of his arguments, and I will leave him merely with this observation, that he is a very worthy specimen of the people on whose behalf he speaks.
Although neither the Minister of Health nor the Secretary for War is present at the moment, I want even now to ask whether this paltry robbery cannot be withdrawn. Much of the standing to it is on dignity and punctilio. I am willing to admit the team work of a Cabinet. I think the Cabinet are unfortunate in their Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I admire to some extent their loyalty to each other. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has now returned to his place, and I put the question to him. Is it too late, without loss of dignity, to put aside the puling nonsense of political divisions for one moment in this case? Is it too late for the Government, whose followers dare not support them by voice, except in the two cases I have mentioned—is it too late for the Government to say: "Well, in the circumstances, after careful examination we may possibly find the £1,000,000 somewhere else?" Is it too late for the Government to retreat from the position taken up? From the ordinary and human point of view it would be better for any
or all of us to look ridiculous for one day than to feel dishonourable for the rest of our lives.
These men have contributed towards a certain surplus, just as members insured in approved societies have done. It has been admitted that much of this money was contributed by service men who have passed away. The excuse used by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff was that many who had contributed to this Fund had now quitted the forces, had returned to civil life, and were not now insured members in approved societies. He asked, was it not fair to return the money to them? What a low plane of argument, if I might say so without throwing barbs about, even under the stress of our feelings on this subject! Then the Government claim that they are entitled to take back their contribution. I deny that the Government, as a Government, contributed one farthing. We of the nation who pay the nation's taxes contributed that proportion. Those who have returned to civil life, and are fortunately in such a position as not to require medical care and benefit through an approved fund, may very well say, and I think they would say, "We are fortunate not to need this money. Let our contributions go to the comrades with whom we worked and fought in the forces, so that they shall receive not only what they were promised, not even the average which a generous Government is professing to offer them, not even, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the highest which is paid to any, but as the money is available let them receive even higher than anyone else because of the suffering through which they have gone."
But the money is to be returned to a few people who do not want it. What do we find? The proportion contributed by those who are dead and gone, and the proportion contributed by those who, now out of the Service, are sufficiently well-to-do to pass beyond the care of approved societies, and the proportion contributed by all of us—not by the Government—as taxpayers of the country, is not to be left to the unfortunate who need it to bring them up above the highest of the ordinary members of an approved society, but is to be returned by this beneficent Government into the Exchequer of the nation. For what? Am I unfair in asking for what? Where will
the £1,000,000 go? If it had remained in this Fund, it would have gone to men who, if not all wounded, if not all gassed, if not all injured by service, have by virtue of their service had their health undermined for the rest of their lives. Again, I say, am I unfair in asking where it will go now? It is quite reasonable to say that it will go to the relief of the taxpayer, of wealthy people who never contributed a farthing to the Fund. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite can interject, but, like the rest of his colleagues, throughout the whole of these long Debates he has not had the courage to get up and defend the Government proposal in a speech. I admit frankly how difficult it may be now to uncoil the tangled skein that has been wound, but I put it to hon. Members opposite that here is a paltry million pounds, and that if the nation, from the poorest on this side to the wealthiest on the opposite side of the House, were convinced that the country was in a serious financial plight for the sake of a paltry £1,000,000, we would quite willingly contribute to build up that million pounds rather than take the money from the source from which the Government propose to take it. But the nation is not in distress and suffering, and is not on its last tottering legs for the want of £1,000,000.
I ask again, why take this paltry sum from people about whom so many hon. Members—I am not one of them—have slobbered phrases during the War and since, as to the care and love and affection that were to be given to them. I appeal to big humane men who can get outside the hide of party politics, that, it is not too late, despite the intricate dovetailing of the Cabinet, even now to say, "Sink or swim our nation for the sake of £1,000,000, rather than take it from these people, we will accept the Amendment and withdraw this Sub-section from the Bill." Are the Government big enough to do that? Even though they appear to be foolish to-day I ask them to be wise men, and kindly men and worthy of our nation for the rest of their lives. I am afraid that they will not do it. I have referred already to the callousness indicated by the empty benches opposite, and by the explosion from the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff. the inaccuracies of whose speech were dis-
posed of by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) as easily as if he were pricking a bladder. The cant and humbug are not on this side of the House but on the other side. Again I express regret that opinions which I gained outside this House in fighting the same people on another plane are only being confirmed by my experience in the House. I ask Members of the Government, not because there have been fierce things said from these benches during the all-night sittings, not because 13 of our gallant friends have been suspended in fighting on this question, but out of the bigness of what we call the British spirit, to return this paltry £1,000,000 to people who have suffered and will suffer for the rest of their time on this earth, and are entitled to some sympathetic consideration.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: We have listened to many criticisms of this Bill, and we have been accused of cowardice for not speaking in support of our party. The Opposition are wrong in thinking that we have remained quiet because we have not been willing to support the party, or because they, by their numerous arguments, have convinced us. On the contrary, I am, personally, an unrepentent supporter of the Government. I think that the Government are acting honestly and seriously. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding that he had a surplus of £1,500,000 in this Fund, and, it having been pointed out to him by the Royal Commission that there were one or two places in which he could improve conditions, he, acting, probably, on the advice of the actuary, proposes to give back this £400,000, which was considered to be sufficient. to bring the Fund into comparable condition with the Fund of approved societies. He was left then with £1,100,000. Probably from an oversight, the right hon. Gentleman missed one Department to which some of this surplus might have been applied. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestion that there is a crying need in the Service for some of this money. I refer particularly to the question of tuberculosis. We know that the present state of tuberculosis in the Services is extremely unsatisfactory. The medical authorities decide whether tuberculosis is attributable to the condi-
tions of service or not, and as far as I can make out there is no appeal against their decisions.
How is consumption caused? There is the bacillus of consumption. Every one of us is breathing that germ every day of his life. We do not get consumption and die from it, because the condition of our bodies is such that we are able to resist and kill the germ. But no doctor, whether in the Navy, Army or Air Service, is in a position, when a man has contracted consumption, to guarantee that it is attributable to the conditions of the service or not. It is only a guess, though it may be a very good guess. Because the authorities cannot do that, they are put into a very awkward position. During the last few weeks I have obtained definite statistics from the three Services by means of question and answer in the House, and I find that in the last three years the number of men invalided from the Air Force suffering from consumption was 92, from the Army 601, and from the Navy 479, giving an average of 390 per annum over the three Services. There is one peculiar point about these figures. I asked for information as to how many cases of the disease were held to be attributable to, or aggravated by, conditions of service. I find the War Office have no records in this respect. In the Navy I found that 1.46 per cent. of the cases were held to be attributable to service, and were consequently granted pensions. I find that in the Air Force 18.47 per cent. were held to be so attributable.
I ask the Committee to note the remarkable difference between the figures for these two services, and of the two services I should think, undoubtedly, the Navy is the more unhealthy because there you have men serving in submarines and torpedo boats, at times in very trying circumstances. One would naturally expect that men in the Navy would he more apt to develop tuberculosis than men in the Air Force. I wonder' whether the Air Force, being a junior service, has perhaps not yet found out by tradition and precedent a rule of thumb in dealing with this matter. Perhaps they allow a freer hand and have been—shall I say—a little more charitable to the men concerned. I think there must he some definite cause why, apparently, the Air Force medical officers are more sympathetic than those in the other service. I can state quite definitely that
it is absolutely impossible, in the majority of cases, in either of the services, to define accurately whether, the cause of the disease is attributable to the conditions of service or not. One may have a very shrewd suspicion, but I do not think that is a sufficient ground either for granting or refusing a pension. I would like to state briefly what the services do. In all cases there is a very thorough and careful examination, and a man who is found to have consumption is invalided out of the service. If it is found that the disease is not attributable to conditions of service, the man cannot get anything. He gets no pension at all in cases where he has not served long enough to qualify otherwise. I should like to give to the Committee a few typical examples showing how the services arc treating some of the tuberculosis men.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think a detailed account of the medical treatment of these cases would be going too far. A reference to these cases, in so far as they concern men who would be affected under this particular Clause, would be in order, but I think the hon. Member proposes to go into too much detail.

Mr. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Would not the hon. Member be in order in giving a typical case, provided it is closely associated with this Fund?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think Tie would be, if he showed the case had some association with this Fund, but I do not think the case to which the hon. Member proposes to refer in detail has anything to do with the Fund.

Mr. PALING: Is it not in order to show that the money, which it is now proposed to divert to other purposes might be better spent on the purposes illustrated by the hon. Member?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That might be so, but as I understand the hon. Member, he proposes to give in detail cases taken from the three services and I suggest that to do so would be going beyond the proper limits of this Debate.

Sir JOHN SIMON: May I respectfully submit that the issue before the Committee is whether or not money, winch it
is proposed to take from this Fund and apply to general purposes, is urgently needed for the relief of those who subscribed to the Fund? Is it not in order —provided too much time is not taken up in individual instances—to quote cases for the purpose of showing that the money ought not to be taken away and devoted to general purposes?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I agree that it is in order, within reasonable limits, to refer to such cases, but the hon. Member would not be in order in taking up too much time by going into the details of such cases.

Dr. DAVIES: I have no wish to enter too much into details, and all I sought to do was to give one or two examples of cases—not of the medical treatment of those cases—in order to show how men under the present system suffer from disabilities in this respect. I was then going to suggest a new system under which they would receive certain benefits. I have in mind one case of a man who entered the Navy, served nine years, developed consumption, was invalided out, was refused a pension and was granted a gratuity of £17. His mother and father being dead he was kept by the charity of a step-mother. Yet this man had served abroad and had developed consumption while in the Navy, but it was held that his disease was not attributable to service and. he was passed on to charity. I have another case of a man who joined the Army, went to Cologne, developed consumption and was invalided out with a gratuity of £17. I have another case of a married man who served in the Army for 17 years and three months, developed consumption, was invalided out, and his disease being held not to be attributable to service, he got a pension of 12s. 3d. per week for himself and family.
I have other cases of the same sort which go to show that under present conditions the amount of money which these men receive as gratuity is absolutely inadequate. The amount which they receive from the National Insurance Fund or from this Services Fund is grossly inadequate and, for the sake of their health and their lives, it is necessary that some other means should be found of assisting them. Here we have a fund which could he partly applied to that purpose. I would suggest a scheme of com-
pulsory insurance. I do not blame the Services in this matter. I have already said it is impossible for them to decide accurately, yea or nay, in these cases, and I think they are perfectly fair and do the best they can according to their convictions. The only way out of the trouble is to have a scheme by which every man in the Services should have to pay a certain amount in order to insure himself against consumption, so that if he is invalided out owing to that disease he may be certain of some provision. If all the men paid Id. a week it would provide each man invalided out of the Service with £100 capital.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member would be in order in going into the details of such a scheme, though he might suggest the use of this money in other ways.

Dr. DAVIES: I was about to suggest that out of the £1,100,000 with which we are dealing here, a grant could be made of £250,000 to produce £10,000 a year, and I reckon—taking the average of the cases for the last three years—a sum of £40,000 a year would be sufficient to give each of these men £1 a week as long as he lived. I take it the average period of life in these cases would be two years. In such a way, I submit this fund could be used, or partly used, to do immense good to these men. How can the man who is invalided out through consumption live on the money which he gets from his approved society? In the best circumstances it is £1 a week for sickness or 10s. a week for disablement. Why, a baby can consume 10s. worth of milk in a week, and yet that is practically all a man gets in disablement benefit When he comes out of the sanatorium. A man has no chance of getting well again in these circumstances. Yet these are men who have served in our Forces and who have been willing to give their lives if necessary for their country, and we send them home, to live or die, on these very inadequate allowances. In some cases they have to depend upon the charity of others, and one of the finest things I have noticed in the practice of my profession has been the fine charity shown by the poor people, one to the other, in such cases. I appeal to the Minister to see if something cannot be done in the way I suggest. It is not charity, it is simply a grant out of this windfall, and
by using it as a nucleus, we might develop a fluid which would prove of material benefit to the Services, help the poor men who are invalided out and be a credit to the nation.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure the Committee heard with interest and sympathy the contribution of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and we recognise his special experience and knowledge of this subject. He will forgive me, if I do not follow him in all the points he raised, some of which I fear were hardly relevant to the matter before the Committee, but I hope to show in a few moments that, under the proposals of the Government, a certain section of the men in whom he and many other hon. Members are interested—the men who arc unable to join approved societies—will be able to receive much better benefits and assistance.

Mr. MACKINDER: They will not be as well off as they would have been had you left the money in the Fund.

Sir K. WOOD: I have listened in patience to all the speeches from the other side, and I hope the hon. Member will have the courtesy to listen to me. As I say, the proposals which are now being made by the Government will do something for that section. of the men to whom the hon. Member has referred. I will endeavour to put before the Committee—very inadequately I fear after the speech of the Secretary of State for War—this matter, as I see it. I remember the formation of this Fund in the year 1911.
6.0 P.M.
It would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1911 to have made no distinction between the particular members of this Fund and the general mass of insured members, and put them in similar conditions to those of members of approved societies. It would have been perfectly easy to have said: "Although you may say this is a bad class of life, if there is a surplus, It shall belong to the contributors." He did not do that, but what did he do I He set up a different system altogether. I think, if I may say so respectfully, that one of the most unfortunate speeches in opposition to this proposal was made by the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, who en-
deavoured to persuade the Committee, I think only to his own satisfaction, that this Fund was exactly like an approved society. I never heard a more unfortunate suggestion, because I do not think a single soul in this Committee, who knows anything about the matter at all, would pretend that this Fund in any material respect is comparable to an approved society.

Mr. THOMAS: Is it not true that tile contributions that go to make the surplus in this Fund are joint contributions from three parties?

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is again putting a point which the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) put yesterday, but which is absolutely untrue. As a matter of fact, if you want to examine and see what the terms of the contributions to this Fund are, you must look at the Act of Parliament, just as a member of an approved society must look at the terms of his policy. That is the only test you can apply, and I think it is a very reasonable test. What are the terms of the policy, which were not framed by this Government, but which were framed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, whom I am not criticising for doing so? The terms of the policy were that, in the first place, unlike an approved society, which has got to stand or fall according to its own merits or demerits and according to its own experience, the amount of benefits is guaranteed. Whatever happens, the State says in connection with this particular Fund: "I will guarantee you the amount, whatever may happen," which is a very different thing from the case of an approved society. As hon. Members opposite, who have been connected with the management of these societies, know, if there is a failure, you have either to levy upon your members to make up the deficiency, or you have to increase your contributions, but there is nothing of the kind so far as this particular Fund is concerned.
In my judgment, no one who belonged to that Fund could come forward and say, either in law or in equity, notwithstanding the very able argument which was addressed by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) yesterday, that under these proposals he has been treated unfairly or in any way
unjustly. The whole of the terms of the contract are not only being honourably and faithfully administered, but under these proposals further benefits are to be given to him. The analogous case to this is that of an insurance company which creates special sections for its policyholders, and says: "If you make certain contributions, we, on our part, will set aside a special fund, and the whole of the assets of the company shall guarantee it, and you will receive a certain fixed amount." When that insurance company comes to be valued, and that fund is valued, if there is a surplus in it, there is not a single person in this Committee—and the last one, I know, would be the right hon. Member for Spen Valley—who would say that that insurance company is not entitled to treat the balance of that fund for the general benefit either of its shareholders, if it is a limited company, or of the whole of its policy-holders.
That, stated dispassionately and, I hope, fairly, is really the position of the contributors to this Fund, but I am quite prepared to deal with the arguments that have been addressed to the Committee, so far as I am concerned, on a different basis altogether. I have been anxious and waiting to hear from the many able Members who have addressed the Committee what exactly, in their judgment, oven on their own basis that this is a fund contributed to by certain sections of people, should be done with the money, and who should receive it. We have had various expressions of opinion. At various times I have taken down, but I have not kept them, loose expressions as to exactly what should be done with this money I wish the hon. Members who have made very able speeches would consider for a moment that this Fund has been in existence since 1911. The Actuary, in his report, has certified that there is a net surplus of £1,500,000 which has been accumulating and growing since 1911, and if you are to say that this money belongs to the contributors, I ask: "Who are the contributors, and how are you going to apportion the money amongst them?"
There are, I think I may say without exaggeration, millions of people who have built up this Fund and the accumulated surplus of £1,500,000. What type of people are they? It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Member for Derby stated,
that the Actuary said that a certain amount of the margin had been built up by people who, unfortunately, had died in the War, but that is not the only class. I doubt very much if that is the biggest class. The biggest class, or, at any rate, a very big class, who have contributed to this Fund, is the literally thousands and thousands of men who came into the Fund during the War, and in respect of whom contributions were paid. What happened to thousands of those men? They went back to civil employment, and, in a very large number of cases, they went out of insurance altogether, because they were above the income rate. If you are going to attempt to apportion this money, you must say that those men are equally entitled to a share of this Fund. because they just as much helped to build it up as any other people who have contributed to it. Therefore, if you want to make a fair division, even on that basis, you will be up against the most extraordinary circumstances in order to do fairness to the contributors.
What is the Government's proposal? They say, in the first place, and, as I believe, perfectly justly, on the analogy of the insurance policy which I have mentioned, that they guaranteed this Fund, that it can be in no way compared with the funds of an approved society, that they kept their bargain in the spirit and the letter, and that if they really so desired—and I would state this on any platform in the country—the whole of this money could go directly back to the Treasury without giving cause for the slightest sense of injustice or complaint. There is not the slightest doubt about it.

Sir J. SIMON: Would it need an Act of Parliament?

Sir K. WOOD: That is why we are dealing with it here. As the right hon. Gentleman has put that, will he allow me to deal with it? He forgets that, as has already been explained, under the scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs all that must be done, so far as the State is concerned, is to guarantee the solvency of the Fund. He read, in his very able speech, Section 57 of the principal Act, and attempted to say that the contributions of the Government were fixed, but he did not read the whole of that Section. It was only
the contributions in respect of members of approved societies that were fixed, and the contributions in respect of other people were such as were to be prescribed. Therefore, it is a perfectly fair argument that it is perfectly possible for the Government, without any Act of Parliament at all, without doing any harm or injustice to a single person in this Fund, having got the. Fund into such a condition as to have such a large surplus, to say that they need not contribute any more until it is necessary. That, undoubtedly, is not only the legal position, but the position in equity, so far as this Fund is concerned.
Let me finish my argument in. regard to the proposal of the Government. I say that, in my judgment, not a single person, whether he be an ex-soldier or whether he has been maimed in the War, or any case like that that hon. Members can imagine, could complain if, inasmuch as this is a guaranteed Fund, and the contract has been honourably kept, the whole of the surplus money went back to the Treasury. The proposal is that a very considerable sum of that surplus, in fact, £400,000, should be devoted to the interests of a class of the community whom everyone would desire to benefit in the greatest possible way. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman opposite allow me to proceed with my speech?

Mr. THOMAS: I neither spoke nor interrupted the hon. Gentleman. He must not assume that I am interrupting. I object to his assumption that people are interrupted. I never looked or spoke.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry. Out of the sum of £1,500,000, the Government are allotting a very substantial portion, namely, £400,000, for the benefit of a particular section of the contributors whom everyone would desire to help, because, as I said just now, if you admit the arguments addressed to the Committee that this Fund belongs to the contributors, at any rate, only a portion of it can belong to them, the number being, I think, at any rate, in 1924, 30,000 readmitted to the Fund, I venture to say—and I hope hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will agree with me in this—that in allotting a sum of £400,000 for the benefit of these men, and for men who may be re-admitted in the same way, very considerable assistance is being given.

Mr. HARNEY: I endeavoured to make the point that the contributions were made general, and why should not all be included?

Sir K. WOOD: What do we do for these men? We are, in fact, carrying out exactly the recommendations of the Royal Commission; a very able and impartial body. They say, give these men additional benefits on the average of those of the approved societies, and also make it easier for them to obtain transfer to approved societies. We are following out in every respect the recommendations of the Royal Commission in that connection, and it is very interesting to see exactly, so far as the actuaries can estimate it, what additional benefits these men will be getting as a result of the Government's proposals. Of some 3,400 societies and branches which have adopted schemes of additional (ash benefits following the second valuation of approved societies, it was found that the additional cash benefits usually given are 3s. sickness benefit, 1s. 6d. disablement benefit, and 6s. maternity benefit, and I may say there are large numbers of societies, including all the courts of the Foresters and the great majority of t he lodges of the Manchester Unity, which have definitely decided to adopt this scale, and give the balance of the disposable surplus in treatment benefits.
What, therefore, will be the additional benefits, as far as we can see, for the class to which I have been referring, as a result of the proposals made to-day, and to be made by Regulations under the provisions of this Bill and laid before this House? I say this, in view of the charges—in my view, most unmerited—which have been made of robbery, and so forth, in this connection. Their cash benefits will be increased in sickness to 18s. a week, to 9s. in respect of disablement, and 46s. for maternity benefit—a very considerable increase. In addition to that, these men will receive, as recommended by the Royal Commission, the treatment benefits which on the average are given, such as dental treatment, on the lines of the approved societies' additional benefits. The selection of these benefits, as I have said, will be made by the Minister of Health, with the aid of a Committee which manages this Fund, and Regulations will he laid before this House, which will have an opportunity of seeing them.
I say that when any hon. Member brings fair-minded consideration to the proposals of the Government, he will admit that the Government are perfectly justified, in view of the condition of this Fund, and the fact that the conditions which were laid down by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself are being faithfully and honourably kept, every benefit being guaranteed, which is not the case in the approved societies. No one has a right, in any event, to complain in that respect; and, further, when it is known that the large sum of £400,000 is going to he set aside for a comparatively small body of men, who, under the scheme which I have just presented to the Committee, will receive such valuable and increasing assistance, I, at any rate, feel that every fair-minded Member of the House will give the Government support in their proposals.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not found it possible to give a more sympathetic answer to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) who very effectively supports the Government not merely on this occasion, but always. Instead of going into the general criticism with regard to the action of the Government in taking away this £1,100,000, I would rather press them further to reconsider their attitude. I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Department is bound to make his case. He is not in a position, perhaps, to consider whether the Government could not see their way to apply this money in some way for the benefit of the wrecks of the War. The Secretary of State for War is here. It is no use referring to the Act of 1911 in this respect. The hon. Gentleman is quite fair when he says it was not contemplated that there would be a surplus of £1,100,000, and that there should be additional benefits based upon it. Of course not. The surplus is attributable to the irruption of the greatest and the most devastating war in history. That was what made the surplus possible, and if there had been no war we should not now be discussing the taking away of £1,100,000 out of the accumulated fund. That was not a miscalculation on the part of the actuaries or a lack of foresight on the part of myself who was in charge of the Bill, or
my right hon. Friend who assisted in framing the final Clauses. It was because there was something never contemplated by anybody who came in and made the creation of this fund possible. Therefore, the argument about the Act of 1911 falls to the ground. It is really not a question as to whether the survivors have got a legal claim. Of course, they have not got a legal claim.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Then why do you call it confiscation?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to go into that argument, very well, but I have been trying to avoid that. I have already expressed my view upon it. I do not withdraw from it in the least, but that is not the point I am on at the present moment. If this had been a legal claim, it would have been enforceable in a Court of law. Nobody has put it from that point of view. That is not what I am putting. I am putting a question as to whether there is not a moral claim upon this accumulated fund of £1,500,000 for the ex-service men who are the wrecks of the War. It is no use saying, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that they did not contribute the whole of this money. That is true of any superannuation fund. Take a Civil Service Superannuation Fund. The size of the fund is attributable very largely to the fact that a great many people die before they ever reach the superannuation age, and the whole of the benefits distributed are upon that basis. The same thing applies here. It is a fact that because there was a very great slaughter in the War, it has been possible to accumulate all this fund, but I have no doubt at all what the opinion of all ex-service men would be with regard to the distribution of the fund.
The hon. Member has made a very practical suggestion. He suggested that a part of this fund should be used for the purpose of dealing with very hard eases of tuberculosis, and in his opinion—and there is no greater authority on this subject—a sum of £250,000 would provide a not very adequate provision for cases of that kind, but, at any rate, it would help very materially the sufferings of ex-Service men who develop tuberculosis in later years. But nobody knows better than the Secretary of State for War that
there have been other cases which have been pressed by the British Legion, and the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), I think, was a little premature on that subject. He will probably hear from the British Legion later on. I should be very surprised if he does not. The British Legion have been pressing very hard the case of those who have developed, after the seven years, some disease or defect which is really attributable to the War, because seven years after they have left the Service they are not entitled to a pension. There is not a Member of this House who has not had many hard cases of that kind brought to his notice, and has not exercised such influence as he possesses to press the Ministry of Pensions to give some sort of indulgent consideration to some of these cases. They cannot do it at present, because there is no fund available for the purpose. The Regulations are very stern, and you cannot do it under the warrant. It is not a question of criticising the Ministry of Pensions. They are exercising such discretion as is in their power, and they are doing it with considerable indulgence. Nobody knows better than those at the War Office that there are genuine cases of this kind which develop after the seven years' period and which are attributable to the shaking effect of the War. The British Legion has been pressing these cases upon the attention of this House and upon the Government.
I am quite prepared to go into the general argument, but I would rather at this stage simply urge the Government, before we part with this Clause, to consider whether it is not desirable for them to utilise the whole of this Fund for the purpose of dealing with the very hard cases that have arisen out of the War, and which at present are not covered by any provision, however liberal it is. It is not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be deprived of £1,000,000 a year, because it, is merely a question of putting £1,000,000 into the Fund this year. What I propose cannot really dislocate the finances to that extent.. I could under stand it if it, were:£1,000,000 a year, or something that was necessary to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his £10,000,000 reduction. That is not the case, because this is a specific Fund which he can only use for this one specific year.
Speaking as an old Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot imagine that this would dislocate his finances to any extent if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to come here and tell the Secretary of State for War that as far as he is concerned he is prepared to forego his claim on this £1,000,000 which he only gets for one year. I am avoiding the general argument about what I consider to be the real character of this transaction, but I am now putting it on the ground of an appeal to common humanity and sympathy, and to the common gratitude which we must all feel. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) rather taunted me with displaying a good deal of emotion in my criticisms of this Bill, but I do so because I have some responsibility for it. I am responsible for some of the pledges and promises which were made, and I am glad to say that they have all been redeemed. Not only that, but there has been a substantial margin available in respect of every one of these particular cases, including the present one, and that is the reason why I feel very strongly in regard to this matter. I feel that we are going back upon something which, on behalf of the Government, Parliament and the nation, I undertook to carry through the House of Commons.
But it is not on that ground I am appealing now. I am appealing on the ground of the desirability of using the Fund, which, whatever may be said about it, was intended for the benefit of the men who have rendered service in the Forces of the Crown. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health saying that this money does not belong to them, because it is a fund which is earmarked for this purpose. I would like to know what would have been said if the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 had come down to this House and said he was going to seize this fund and use it to reduce the Sugar Duty. I know what would have been said by every hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I feel sure that the language which has been used from this side of the House in regard to these proposals is very moderate compared with what would have been used by hon. Members opposite and even by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Minister of Health must know that where money
has been accumulated by contributions made by the men in the Service for the purpose of insurance in case of ill-health and breakdown, although at that time he did not contemplate the possibility of there being a surplus which would enable the Government to give greater benefits, it was intended that every penny piece should be used for that purpose.
Supposing in 1911 the Secretary of State for War and I and others who were in the House at that time—probably the vast majority are new Members of the House and were not here in 1911—had foreseen the possibility of something of this kind happening and that there would have been a balance of £1,500,000. Is it conceivable that then anybody on the opposite side of the House would have said that that money should go to the Exchequer? Not at all. I have not the faintest doubt that my right hon. Friend would have said that in such an event you must give larger benefits, and you would not have said that this balance must pass into the Exchequer. There is not a member of the party opposite who would not have said that you must give larger benefits to the soldiers and sailors, and that is what they would have done. Taking that into account you cannot treat this sum of money as being in the nature of a windfall for the general taxpayers. You cannot do it. The mere fact that the State has contributed makes no difference, because here the State is purely an employer of labour. What would have been said if the coal owners had made a proposal of this kind in order to enable them to carry on? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a railway company!"] I think a railway company furnishes a better example.

Mr. THOMAS: We would not let them do it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In essence, that would be the same thing, because the State is the employer, and, so far from this money being a windfall, it is the wreckage of a great storm. I ask the Minister of Health if he will not promise to confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, of course, with the Prime Minister, in order to sec whether the Government cannot reconsider the position. It is no use saying that you are giving benefits out of the £400,000. That is practicaly only one-fourth, or a little over, of the total amount which
is in the Fund, and if you are giving one-fourth of a fund which belongs really to the ex-service men as a whole and taking three-fourths away from them, that is not conferring any benefits upon the ex-service men. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health began his remarks by giving details of the benefits which were going to be conferred out of this £400,000, and I am sorry to say that some hon. Members were rather taken in by that statement. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that the other three-fourths of the Fund would be taken away and that many other benefits for which the War has created the need could have been dealt with by utilising the whole of this Fund. This Fund is bigger because of the War, and the need for it is greater because of the War. The Fund was created by the War and the need was also created by the War. It is the shaking they have received in the War that has reduced these men to this condition, and that has made it necessary that something should be done to deal with them; and, if not dealt with by funds of this kind, they have to fall back upon the charity of the nation. Is it too late to ask the Secretary of State for War, that if he cannot give an answer now, he will, at any rate, between now and the next stage confer with his colleagues as to the possibility of using the whole of this Fund either for the purpose of such schemes as have been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) or deal with the cases put by the British Legion of the men who, after seven years, find themselves wrecks and have nothing whatever allowed them.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I happen to be one of the very few Members of this House who have been contributors to this particular Fund, and I should like to put forward the view of the contributors. When I first listened to the discussions, I was not aware of the very grave injustice that was proposed to be done; in fact, I had almost forgotten I was a contributor to this particular Fund. My view of the matter seems to be that of the main part of the contributors. There is a population of 85,000 in my constituency, and they contain a very high percentage of contributors to this Fund. May I say that, in spite of the fact that so
many of the contributors are ex-service men, I have not received a single communication from any ex-service man protesting against the robbery or confiscation which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) alleges is taking place in regard to this Fund. Therefore, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the opinion of the defrauded contributors is very much the opinion of the defrauded contributor who is now addressing the Committee.
May I put forward one criticism which I think is applicable to certain proposals in this Bill? The object of this proposal is to endeavour to help the lower-paid workers in this country and particularly the unemployed workers to get into employment. That is to say, it is an attempt, a very small one I admit, to relieve industry and to enable men to obtain employment. Does this Measure really effect this object? Does the mere change in the position of this fund really lighten the burden of the workers in the industries of this country? So long as that fund is not spent, it is doing just as much good to the workers and the industries as if it is transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is the spending of the fund that injures the workers. It is not the mere accumulation of it, it is not the mere book transfer of this accumulating fund into the hands of the Exchequer, but it is the risk that it may induce a Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have now, full of bright ideas, I am sorry to say, to think, as he is only too prone to think, that he has another million and a half that he can use for measures of what are termed social reform.

Mr. WALLHEAD: In spite of the petulance with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health defended this proposal, and in spite of all the specious arguments that have been put forward by him and by the Secretary of State for. War, the case still remains the same from every point of view. The hon. Gentleman told us it was taken for granted that the men of the Army and the Navy have no claim upon this fund whatever, and a moment or two ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)stated that there was no legal claim, that statement was received with acclamation
on the other side of the Committee. Even supposing it were true that there is no legal claim to this fund on the part of the men concerned, at least it is equally true that the Government have no legal claim to it. As a matter of fact, they are attempting, by means of this Bill, to establish a legal right to it, and the fact that they have had to bring in a Bill, to get an Act of Parliament, to legalise this act of confiscation, as I call it, proves at least that their claim to the money is not a particularly good one at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman told us that no suggestions have been put forward so far as the disposal of this surplus is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) told us that many of the men who contributed to this fund were no longer in the Army at all; they had passed out. It is perfectly true that some passed out by discharge, but, as has been pointed out on several occasions, many have passed out through the gateway of death itself, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has stated, is how the magnitude of this fund has arisen.

Captain A. EVANS: May I say that the relatives of those men who unfortunately fell in the War are represented in the general taxpayers of this country?

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is perfectly true that a large number of men did pass out in that way, but they left widows and orphans behind them, and I am going to make a suggestion, in addition to those that have been made already, as to a method whereby this fund might be used with benefit to those who were left behind, which would probably meet the wishes of those who have gone, and would be of benefit to the country as a whole. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) indicated a very excellent way in which much of this money might be used. I suggest that the whole of the money might have been erected into a compassionate fund to meet the cases that were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). Every Member of the House must, in the course of his duties here, receive piteous appeals on behalf of broken men for something to be done to assist them in the deplorable condition in which they find themselves. We go to
the Ministry of Pensions and ask for some consideration, but we are turned down on the ground that Committee after Committee has rejected this appeal, and the Minister himself, although he has, it may be, the best of motives, can do absolutely nothing.
I think it is not denied that the seven years' limit Fs not sufficient to cover all the cases that might arise, and there 's ample ground for making compassionate allowances to some of these broken men. Here is a Fund of £1,100,000, which would bring in a certain amount of money per year, and that could be devoted to relieving the worst cases of these men who have suffered so badly. I have in my own constituency cases of the most piteous description, of men whose reason has become partially unseated because of the conditions under which they were during the years of the War. Their condition has become worse as the years have gone by, but nothing can be done now; the Ministry and the Government can do nothing. It is a disgrace that this money should be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer while it might be used for such purposes as this.
There is another method in which the money might be used. The men who have died have left widows and orphans, and the widows, in order to bring up their children, are finding it a somewhat desperate matter to hold their own. Here are these children, the children of soldiers who have died, bright boys and bright girls, who have not much chance of coming through from the educational point of view. If this £1,100,000 were invested or established as a fund, it would bring in at least £55,000 a year, which would form the basis of a bursary fund to enable the sons and daughters of soldiers killed in the War to receive an education of a higher character, which would give them a better start in life. That would be something of value to the country, and would, I am sure, be in accord with the wishes of those who contributed to the fund. It would be a greater service to the State than any thing for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can use this money by taking it in the way in which he is doing. That is a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration, and if the Parliamentary Secretary has done me the honour to listen to it, I commend it to his consideration, as being at least something which
would be of benefit to those who have contributed to the fund and to the families they have left behind, and which would be beneficial to the State.
I suggest once more that the Government's treatment of this Fund is bad from every point of view. It cannot be defended. The Parliamentary Secretary has done his level best. He has even tried to deny the first principles of insurance in the lame attempt he made to defend this iniquitous proposal. We ought to hesitate before we do this thing with this money. Within a stone's throw of this House there stands your Cenotaph, the national memorial to the men who fell in the War. Every year there is enacted there a harrowing ceremony of a religious character. Orphan children are brought there, sorrowing women are bought there, tears are shed, floral wreaths are placed there, and on that stone there is inscribed the words:
They died that we might live.
Yet, here we sit to-night, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer attempting to take one million pounds from the men who subscribed this money, while the survivors of the War tramp the streets, or draw pictures on the pavement, begging for coppers to keep their souls alive in their bodies. It is a disgraceful thing. Here is the party opposite, with its large majority, that is going to trample in a few minutes over every argument we have put forward, who have denounced us, who have appealed to the soldiers to have nothing to do with us on the ground that we are anti-patriotic and opposed to the best interests of our country, who appeal to them to support the Conservative party because the Conservative party is pledged to the Services to maintain them, Here we sit, and we are going to pass this Act —at. least, it is not going to be passed with our consent—to rob the dead of the funds they left behind, while the families of the dead are almost starving in the midst of plenty.
I do not believe that the financial condition of this country is so desperate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer need lay his hands upon this Fund. The newspapers are telling us now that London is looking forward this summer to the most brilliant season that London has seen for some considerable time. What does a brilliant season in London mean,
so far as the newspaper Press is concerned? It means the lavish expenditure of money; it means that there is ample money to be spent upon luxurious entertainments; it means that there is money to be spent in establishing this brilliant season. I am under no delusion. I am making no appeal to the Government; they are doing exactly what they were expected to do, that is to say, they are looking after the men who fill their war chest for them, they are looking after the men who sustain their party, they are looking after the rich men who contribute to their funds and whom they are protecting from the expense of the meager—

The CHAIRMAN: Really, the hon. Member is going far too wide.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, Sir; I was led away for the moment by a feeling of deep indignation at what is being done, because I know that, if this money were established as a fund that would help the men who were broken in the War, there are men in my constituency to-day who could put in a legitimate claim for assistance, and whose lives might be brightened because this Fund was there at their disposal. I say it is a most iniquitous thing that this great city can look forward to a brilliant season while we sit here taking from the men who have contributed to this Fund which their meagre savings have made. I hope that that will be remembered in the future. I do not see why we should attempt to ask the Government to save themselves; the sooner the wretched Government goes down the better. A short time ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was regarded as a great acquisition to the Conservative party. They thought they had made a great capture when they bought him in the way that they did. They will find that he is about the dearest thing they have picked up. He is mow there, with his Under-Secretaries and colleagues in the Cabinet—bond-slaves to him—working his wicked will so far as this Fund is concerned, in order that he may balance his wretched Budget in a way that is designed to save the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poorest, and the most helpless of the poor.

Mr. SPENCER: There is a passage in one of Charlotte Bronté's books,
"Shirley," where Shirley asks Helstone, the vicar, what are the politics of Moore, the hero of that book, and Helstone says,
They are the politics of a tradesman, narrow, selfish, and unpatriotic.
7.0 P.M.
I think that that is a very fair description of the Government's attitude towards this Fund. It is certainly very narrow, it is certainly very selfish, and it is certainly very unpatriotic. Let us take for a moment the Government's interpretation of the Act of 1911. What the Government arc saying, in effect, is that in 1911 certain contributions were made by the Government to two separate funds. In the first place, they made a contribution to the societies of certain sums of money, but there were certain men belonging to the Army who were so broken in physique that the insurance societies would not take them. Therefore, a special fund had to be set up so that those men should be protected. What is the argument which is being used to-night? It is that the 2d. which the State contributed to the workman employed in industry was a contribution that could not be recalled.
On the other hand, the Government are saying, with regard to the 1½d. that has been contributed to a Fund which is going to assist the soldier, that they have a right under certain circumstances to reclaim it. Last night the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) used a very incomplete and, if I may say so, from this point of view, a very sad simile. He said that this Fund was something similar to a fund that might have been built up out of the savings of the family to which the father had made some contribution. The simile may be all right if you take it as far as it goes, but what is the completeness of the simile? The father is making certain contributions —the father being the State—but he is making the contributions to the stronger part of the family and to the weaker part of the family. He has put his weekly contributions into the savings banks of the weaker part of the family and of the stronger. He is now saying to the weaker part, "I am going to take these savings back again." I beg to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Measure that he dare not go to the approved societies and say to them, "I
am going to take the contributions that I have made to the strong societies."
Therefore, I say that the Government's interpretation of the Bill which was passed in 1911 is certainly a most narrow one. The contributions differ, one going to the societies and the other going to the funds. It stands to common sense that if you cannot recall the contribution the State has made to the societies, logically you cannot recall the contribution which has been made to the Fund on behalf of a section of men who could not be taken up by those societies. It is very selfish to take those contributions. A very great deal has been made from the other side with regard to the benefits which we legally provide, and it has been said more than once, "Whose funds are these? Who have made the contributions?" Nobody knows better than the hon. Gentleman who has made the contributions to the societies. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the surpluses that exist to-day in the societies have not been contributed by men who are already dead? As a matter of fact, there are thousands of men who have paid contributions to societies who have never drawn a single penny piece and who are dead. Does he say those funds belong to them?
What he does say, in effect, is that those funds which the societies hold are held in trust by the societies for the benefit of those who have legitimate claims. If that be his attitude with regard to the funds that are held in trust by the societies, I put it to him that that should be precisely the position of the Government with regard to these funds. They should hold them in trust for those people who have made the contributions. Every man who has made his contribution to this particular fund would be a potential beneficiary. It would be better for him if he made no call whatever upon the fund. It would mean, as far as he was concerned, that he had escaped illness or anything which rendered him liable to become a subject of the fund. I am quite certain that if he could make his voice heard to-night he would definitely say: "I gave my contribution on behalf of those who have sustained some cause, either disease or some other affliction, which entitles them to have this benefit." Therefore, I suggest that in doing what the Government are doing they are proving that they are very selfish indeed. They are certainly going to the weaker
side and are taking out of the savings of the weaker members of the family the contributions they have made towards them.
My third point is that it is very unpatriotic indeed. If there be a section of the community whose advantages they should have fortified it is this section. The approved societies are well able to take care of themselves. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has pointed out that there are instances where there have been an undue call upon the funds. In those cases, probably there is a deficiency. Generally speaking, there are large surpluses. Taking it all over the average, they have not had undue risk. Where they have had undue risk they have had to curtail their business. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, those are people who should have received his special attention and should be the subject of his special care and generosity. When I first listened to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, I thought it was a really good case he was making out. I feel certain, on grounds of reason and justice, the Government themselves have not gone into the case at all. I am certain the logical conclusion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was that these sums should not be misappropriated by the Government—I use no stronger term than that—but should be used in the interests and for the advantage of those who have made the contributions. Whether the Government do so or not, it does not matter to this side, but, so far as right and justice is concerned, it is on the side of those who have been standing for those who made contributions.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: Some Chancellors of the Exchequer have been able to conjure with figures. Others have been able to conjure with words. The present Chancellor seems to have been able to conjure with his colleagues. He has induced them to support this part of a Bill which is properly described as a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. As a result of discussions which have taken place during the last three days, there have emerged quite evidently facts which can no longer be contradicted. It must be
admitted, for example, that this is a Fund which was definitely intended and definitely earmarked for the benefit of certain people. It cannot be denied that in normal circumstances the existence of a surplus in this Fund would be utilised for the benefit of those people for whom the Fund was created. It must also be agreed that the Government itself has done nothing towards the creation of this surplus. If you look at the Report of the Actuary on this part of the Bill, on page 11, it sets out the various causes which are responsible for the existence of this surplus. The first is that the rate of interest has been in excess of that assumed; the second is that the cost of administration has been less than was expected; the third is the utilisation of a margin, which, in the case of approved societies, was carried to contingency funds; the fourth is reserves arising out of a large number of deaths; the fifth is special contributions, and the last is because maternity benefit was less than anticipated. Not one of those causes which are responsible for the existence of this surplus owes anything to any action on the part of the Government. In other words, the surplus is a surplus which has been created by the normal working of this Fund which was established for certain definite objects.
It will not be denied that now the greater part of this surplus is being diverted from the purposes for which the fund was created. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has taken part two or three times in the course of these discussions, and he has contented himself with two attitudes. In the first place, he has said that all this talk on the part of the Opposition is with the obvious intention of creating dissatisfaction in the Forces of the Crown, and in order to suggest that they are being unfairly treated. So far as I am concerned, the last thing I would ever want to do would be to create dissatisfaction in the Forces of the Crown, and, if our attitude is being taken with the object of suggesting they are being unfairly treated, we are only suggesting what is a fact. They are being unfairly treated. £1,000,000 is being taken away from a Fund which was established for the purpose of creating benefits for those people. When the right hon. Gentleman is not opposing us in that fashion, he is
opposing us by his second explanation which is that the Government are at one and the same time taking away £1,000,000 out of the Fund and making those people better off than they have ever been and than they are entitled to be. The former part may be true, but the latter part is an extraordinary statement to make. If these men are not men who are entitled to the Fund I should like to know who are entitled to it. At the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman is deriving a benefit which he is unwilling apparently to give to the contributors to this Fund—rest and sustenance, after the labours of the day.
He started by saying they were going to give them all this, and it was only when they were pressed that we discovered that what the men are to have is not anything special, but the benefits of the average approved society. When you find a fund sufficiently large to give them those benefits and ether benefits and to inaugurate schemes of great value, such as that suggested by the hon. Member who spoke from the bench below me early this afternoon, then we are entitled in the name of those people who cannot protest themselves to protest strongly against the action which the Government are taking. I saw in yesterday's papers that the Prime Minister had been speaking with great interest and his customary charm on the subject of optical illusions. All I can say is that those men will have to suffer from a very considerable optical illusion before they will see improvement in their state which the apologists of the Government have sought to hold out.

Mr. J. JONES: Those of us who are not so well acquainted with the administration of the National Health Insurance Act but are members of approved societies in our own particular districts know that there are on the funds to-day large numbers of men who properly ought to be benefiting by this Act. We have in the country 7,000,000 men who joined the Forces. A large proportion of them are to-day derelicts, and, although they are not benefiting by the Act, those of us who are members of trade unions and approved societies are compelled, to the best of our ability, to assist them in the struggle with which they are faced. I cannot pretend to be an actuarial expert, but the Fund, after
all, was originally held out as an inducement to men to help their country in the hour of danger. They were told that all accumulated reserves would go to the advantage of the men concerned. Members of approved societies were asked to get men to become members of His Majesty's Forces, because they were going to be protected in their hour of danger and disaster.
What do we find now'? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not treated the Committee with the respect due to it in being continuously absent from the Debate, because he is the father and the mother, and I believe eventually he will ho the grandmother, if not the great grandmother, of this Bill. He knows full well that the amount of money he is going to get as the result of this Clause will not enable him to secure any real economy. He will not be able to reduce the Income Tax. He will not he able even to save his own face when he addresses his constituency. It reminds me very much of the position of the man who went into a graveyard, pinched a wreath from a grave, and won the first prize at a flower show. We are told to-day that all the men who are supposed to benefit by this economy are going to have their benefit guaranteed to them. How are the benefits going to be guaranteed? The poor will have to keep the poor. In my own district we have hundreds of men receiving assistance from the Board of Guardians through the Relief Committee. Before the War, and when they joined up in 1914, as the result of appeals made by Members of all parties, they were young, strong and healthy, but to-day they are in the wards and in the various departments of our workhouse and infirmary. They are disqualified under the existing Insurance Acts. They are not supposed to be entitled to pensions, because they have gone beyond the statutory period for benefit. These men are being kept by the local authorities.
This is part of the policy generally pursued by the Government that the poor must keep the poor. I am not troubling about the £1,000,000. I am troubling more about the £2,000,000 we pay to the parties at the other end of the social scale for the right to live in our own country. If you want another £1,000,000 take it from them. The whole position is that you take it from the workers all the
time. The £400,000 is going to be given as a kind of bribe. Out of the £1,500,000 £400,000 is to be handed back. Then hon. Members opposite will go to East Ham and say "Look at what we have done." They do not tell you whom they have done. "We are giving you £400,000 more than you had before. We promise that you will get something later on if you will only be good." No Government of modern times finding itself in financial difficulties has ever been so contemptibly mean as this Government has been in dealing with these matters. The whole Bill will only bring in £10,000,000. There is one man in the country to-day who can boast that he had last year a total income of £5,000,000. Of course, he paid Excess Profits Duty upon it. So would I if I had it.

The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman in question has nothing to do with this Fund.

Mr. JONES: No, but the gentleman is in question, because he is one of the people who will benefit as the result of this so-called economy. If it was not for the pinching of £1,000,000 from the poor, he would have to pay out a little more, and, therefore, he will be a strong supporter of the Government. I only want you to recognise the fact that you cannot keep on for ever. In the language of Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS rose tin Ms place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 132.

Division No. 151.]
AYES.
[7.21 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Clarry, Reginald George
Harland, A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M, S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harrison, G. J. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Haslam, Henry C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Couper, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Henderson, Capt. R, R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, Viscountess
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Balniel, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hills, Major John Waller


Barclay. Harvey, C. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Betterton, Henry B
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Drewe, C.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Duckworth, John
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney N.)


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Captain Walter E
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elveden, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
England, Colonel A.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Briggs, J. Harold
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fairtax, Captain J. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jacob, A. E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fermoy, Lord
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Burman, J. B.
Finburgh, S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Forrest, W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gadie, Lieut.-Col Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Campbell, E. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cassels, J. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Goff, Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grace, John
Loder, J. de V.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chamberlain, Rt Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gretton, Colonel John
Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman


Chapman, Sir S.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Macintyre, Ian
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


McLean, Major A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Templeton, W. P.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Remer, J. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Remnant, Sir James
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Malone, Major P. B.
Ropner, Major L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Waddington, R.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Meller, R. J.
Rye, F. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull).


Merriman, F, B.
Salmon, Major I.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandon, Lord
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, H. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Ptrsfld.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nuttall, Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wise, Sir Fredric


Oakley, T.
Shepperson, E. W.
Withers, John James


Penny, Frederick George
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wolmer, Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skeiton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Philipson, Mabel
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pilcher, G.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Preston, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Price, Major C. W. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Major Cope and Captain Margesson.


Radford, E. A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Ramsden, E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlilery)
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H, E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Warne, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 141.

Division No. 152.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Grace, John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Fronts)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greenwood, Rt. H n. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Pilcher, G,


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William


Atkinson, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Harland, A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hastam, Henry C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bethel, A.
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hartford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ropner, Major L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rye, F. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Burman, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hurst, Gerald B.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cassels, J. D.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R (Prtsmth, S)
Jacob, A. E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Willsden, E)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Strickland, sir Gerald


Clarry, Reginald George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Templeton, W. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de v.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waddington, R.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank, cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Cot. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macintyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Drewe, C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Edmonson, Major A. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ellis, R. G.
Merriman, F. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Elveden, Viscount
Meyer, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wolmer, Viscount


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. U.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Finburgh, S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Major Cope and Captain Margesson


Ganzoni, Sir John
Oakley, T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J, J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sullivan, Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Duckworth John
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B


England, Colonel A.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Forrest, W.
Morris, R. H.
Warne, G. H.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Philipson, Mabel
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest. J. (York, Hemsworth)
Remnant, Sir James



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS TOR THE NOES.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question ' That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 132.

Division No. 153.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Briggs, J. Harold
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bullock, Captain M.
Cope, Major William


Astor, Viscountess
Burman, J. B.
Couper, J. B.


Atkinson, C.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balniel, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barnett Major Sir Richard
Cassels, J. D.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bethel, A.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chapman, Sir S.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Drewe C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.


Dukeworth, John
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Edmonson, Major A. J.
Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M (Surrey, Farnham)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ellis, R.G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sandeman, A, Stewart


Elveden, Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Loder, J, de V.
Sandon, Lord


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lord, Walter Greaves.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Fermoy, Lord
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Finburgh, S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Forrest, W.
MacIntyre, Ian
Shepperson, E. W.


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Skelton, A. N.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Glyn, Major R.G.C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Goff, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Grace, John
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)


Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gretton-Colonel John
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Haking, Captain D.W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harland A
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrst'ld.)
Waddington, R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Penny, Frederick George
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Holt. Capt. H.P.
Pilcher, G.
Williams, Com. C, (Devon, Torquay)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Winby, Colonel L, P.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Preston, William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Radford, E. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, E.
Withers, John James


Hurd, Percy A.
Rees. Sir Beddoe
Wolmer, Viscount


Hurst, Gerald B.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remnant, Sir James
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Jephcott, A. R.
Ropner, Major L.



Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon, Sir William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barnes, A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Percy A.


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Briant, Frank
Fenby, T. D.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Broad, F. A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, G. H.


Bromfield, William
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bromley, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Cape Thomas
Greenall, T.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Charleton, H C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Clowes, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Connolly, M.
Groves, T.
Kennedy, T.


Cove, W. G.
Grundy, T. W.
Kenyon, Barnet




Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, E.


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lindley, F. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


Livingstone, A. M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Lowth, T.
Sexton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.


Mackinder, W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wallhead, Richard C


MacLaren, Andrew
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Warne, G. H.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


March, S,
Smillie, Robert
Westwood, J.


Montague, Frederick
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, W.


Morris, R. H.
Snell, Harry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Murnin, H.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Naylor, T. E.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Owen, Major G.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Palin, John Henry
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Windsor, Walter


Paling, W.
Sullivan, Joseph
Wright, W.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)



Ponsonby, Arthur
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 124.

Division No. 154.]
AYES.
[7.51 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Gerald B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Drewe, C.
Jacob, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A, J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bethel, A.
Elvoden, Viscount
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)


Betterton, Henry B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Blundell, F. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Finburgh, S.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadie, Lieut.-Col, Anthony
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Brittain, Sir Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Goff, Sir Park
MacIntyre, Ian


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grace, John
McLean, Major A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Burman, J. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hit. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Gretton, Colonel John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grotrian, H. Brent
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cassels, J. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Harland, A.
Meller, R. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Merriman, F. B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Meyer, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Chapman, Sir S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Nelson, Sir Frank


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cope, Major William
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Couper, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.


Craig, Ernest (Chester. Crewe)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Penny, Frederick George


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Waddington, R.


Pilcher, G.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Preston, William
Shepperson, E. W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Skelton, A. N.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Ramsden, E.
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Remer, J. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ropner, Major L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Withers, John James


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Rye, F. G.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Womersley, W. J.


Salmon, Major I.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Templeton, W. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Sandon, Lord
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Smilllie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Duckworth, John
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


England, Colonel A.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Warne, G. H.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Philipson, Mabel
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Remnant, Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.

Mr. BROMLEY: On a point of Order. In passing through the "No" Lobby, I had reason, seeing I am leaving early tonight, having remained up all last night, to consult a railway guide. I left that guide while there were still people passing
through from the "Aye" Lobby, and I hurried at a quick pace, with two hon. Members from this side who were consulting the guide with me. I was not "told" in the "No" Lobby, and I ask for your ruling on that point.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that from whatever reason the hon. Member did not get into the Lobby—

Mr. BROMLEY: I was in the Lobby. I proceeded into the Lobby at that end for the purpose of seeing a railway guide. Two hon. Members from this side were with me. They drew my attention to the fact that everyone had passed through our Lobby. I looked round. There were still some going through the "Aye" Lobby. I left and walked at a rapid pace down here and was told there were no Tellers. Although I was in the Lobby, and I passed through before the other Lobby was closed, I am told I cannot be counted.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand there have been such cases before. If the two Tellers are agreed that the hon. Member and two others did so vote, the Division list will he amended accordingly.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think we have reached a stage where the reconsideration of the Government's position towards the Opposition should be immediately faced. It will be admitted that we have been defending this afternoon, not only an important question, bat a question that is seriously disturbing the mind of Members opposite. No charge has been made of any kind of obstruction or waste of time, nor has there been other than a genuine desire to face the facts of the situation in a Parliamentary manner. We have had no opportunities of discussing a vital part of the Clause that you, Sir, in spite of our protest, put from the Chair. We have had no opportunity of putting before the Committee many arguments on many questions vital to the interests of the people whom we represent. We protest against this conduct that is meted out to us.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in at the time. I accepted the Closure on

the Clause as a whole. At the beginning of the Debate on the Clause I said I would follow the same procedure that had been followed by Mr. Speaker on Report of the Ways and Means Resolution, namely, that on the first Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) a general discussion on the Clause would be allowed.

Mr. THOMAS: There were two Amendments. One was in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) which has not been discussed. It deals with the date and is vital from our point of view. There was another Amendment of my hon. Friends here, which was raised in the general discussion. I accepted the ruling that both. Amendments need not be put, but I was not informed that it was the intention not to have a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." That is an unprecedented thing. I have known Members opposite, when on this side, take up a very strong attitude on a less important point. This appears to us to be a continuance of the scandalous treatment meted out to us. This is not the first occasion that a direct insult, more or less, has been hurled at us, merely because we are fighting this Clause, and for that reason I beg to move to report Progress.

The CHAIRMAN: I shall put the Question at once.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Sir J. SIMON: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Might I ask whether, under the Rules of the House, it is competent for the Chair to announce that it will put a Question without debate unless it is the opinion of the. Chair that the Motion has been made in abuse of the Rules of the House.

The CHAIRMAN: That is my view.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127: Noes, 228.

Division No. 155.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W,
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Briant, Frank
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, F. A
Charleton, H. C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromfield, William
Clowes, S.


Barnes, A.
Bromley, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Connolly, M.


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Cove, W. G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kenyon, Barnet
Snell, Harry


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Sullivan, Joseph


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Thurtle, E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Groves, T
Murnin, H.
Varley, Frank B.


Grundy, T. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Guest, J. (York, Kemsworth)
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major G.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry
Warne, G. H.


Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James
Windsor, Walter


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Nowton)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Sir


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert
Frederick Hall.


Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)



NOES.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cope, Major William
Haslam, Henry C.


Apsley, Lord
Couper, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V L. (Bootel)


Astor, Viscountess
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hills, Major John Waller


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Barnett. Major Sir Richard
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Birchall, Major J, Dearman
Drewe, C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Duckworth, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Blundell, F N.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elveden, Viscount
Hurst, Gerald B.


Brittain, Sir Harry
England, Colonel A.
Hide, Sir Edward M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermoy, Lord
Jacob, A. E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Finburgh, S.
Jephcott, A. R.


Burman, J. B.
Forrest, W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Galbraith, J. F. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Campbell, E. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cassels, J. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Goff, Sir Park
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grace, John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chapman, Sir S.
Gretton, Colonel John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Charter is, Brigadier-General J.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Chilcott. Sir Warden
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacIntyre, I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McLean, Major A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harland, A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John




MacRobert, Alexander M.
Remer, J. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Remnant, Sir James
Templeton, W. P.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Malone, Major P. B.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Meller, R. J.
Ropner, Major L,
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Merriman, F. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waddington, R.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Rye, F. G.
Wallace, Captain D, E.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Salmon, Major I.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Nuttail, Ellis
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Penny, Frederick George
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shepperson, E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Simms, Dr. John M, (Co. Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, John James


Philipson, Mabel
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wolmer, Viscount


Pilcher, G.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Preston, William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Ramsden, E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



Rees, Sir Beddoe
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Major Sir Harry Barnston and




Captain Margesson.

Mr. THOMAS: I desire to inform you, Sir, that I propose taking the necessary steps in the Parliamentary way to ask this House to express its opinion of your partial and biased conduct.

Mr. BROMLEY: On a point of Order. I am not doing this either to inconvenience yourself as the Chairman of Committees, or to hold up the House. I am doing it on a matter on which I feel strongly, and I am in no way confident, and I want you to help me. You were kind enough to indicate to me a few moments ago that by a consultation between the two Tellers there was a way of putting my vote in order. I am informed by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), who was one of the Tellers, that, after my request to you, and your very fair ruling, he was unable to get in touch with the Government Teller until after you had called another Division. On that account the names of myself, the bon. Member for Newcastle and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) have been refused on the Division list. I ask you whether it is quite fair to one who has religiously stuck to his duties here last night and to-day to be treated in that way because of the inability of one Teller to find the other?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether I have any power in the matter, but I will gladly consult Mr. Speaker and
see if it is possible to amend the Division list and insert the hon. Members' names, or whether it is possible to add something by way of correction. That is the most I can do.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the Tellers ought not to have left the Lobby until they were satisfied that everyone eligible to vote had left, and that by leaving they are themselves to blame?

The CHAIRMAN: That may be. Undoubtedly there has been a mistake. I cannot say whose fault it is, but I will see what can be done to put the matter right.

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Controller of the Household): May I say that the Whips of the party opposite came and told us that they were all out, and that in the reason why my hon. Friend and I reported.

Mr. BROMLEY: The Labour party Whips must certainly have known that we were not all out. I do not for a moment wish to doubt the hon. and gallant Member's statement, but there has been a mistake somewhere. The hon. Member for Newcastle and myself were standing at the Table, and the hon. Member for Blaydon was at the desk writing, so that it was impossible for us to have been passed over knowingly. I
do not suggest that the hon. and gallant Member is not saying what he believes to be quite accurate, but a mistake has been made somewhere. For my part I accept your ruling and your generous indication that you will deal with the position.

CLAUSE 6.—(Consequential Amendments of enactments relating to National Health Insurance, and variation of reserve values.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before we pass this Clause there are a few remarks I desire to make, and if the Parliamentary Secretary will give me his attention for a few moments I will try to explain to him the point upon which I desire information. If he will turn to Clause 6 he will find that Sub-section (3) reads as follows:
Provision may be made by regulations for such variation of reserve values as appears necessary in consequence of the provisions of this part of this Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary is familiar enough with national health insurance to know that the whole construction of this scheme depends on what are called reserve values. I am not sure whether my figures are correct in this connection, but I think when this scheme came into operation in 1912 there was a stipulated sum of money amounting to about £80,000,000 which was mere paper credit. The law provided that such credits should be wiped out from the income of the societies from year to year, and the time will, of course, ultimately arrive when these paper credits will be wiped out. To prove that I am right in the assumption that reserve values are the fundamental basis of this scheme, let me read to the Committee what the Actuarial Committee, through the Royal Commission, said on this important subject. As a matter of fact, it is upon the recommendations of the Actuarial Committee that the Royal Commission itself proceeded to make their recommendations. This is what they say:
Before proceeding to this stage we think it necessary to refer to certain considerations which arise out of the peculiar conditions governing the finance of the system of National Health Insurance. The system is operated through a large number of financially independent or semi-independent units, either societies or branches of
societies, and these units differ materially from one another in their experience in respect of the greater number of the factors enumerated above.
And the next are the important words which I desire to emphasise:
The contributions are not, however, equated to the varying risks undertaken by the separate units; they are uniform in amount for all insured persons of each sex, and the reserve values, representing the estimated loss arising from the acceptance of persons of higher ages than sixteen at the rate of contribution appropriate to that age, are likewise uniform in amount for all persons of the same age and sex.
I agree with the Government. Committee of Actuaries, and would pay a greater tribute to the capacity of this Committee than to the body of Actuaries whose names are attached to the other document. I must refer to a further important point in connection with these reserve values and call the attention of the Committee to Clause 66 of the Consolidated Act, 1924. In order to get a proper view of this problem, we must get our perspective correctly set. As the preacher says, "we must have the historical setting in order so as to see all the points in this connection." Let us see what Section 66 of the Act of 1924 provides. It says:
On a person of the age of seventeen or upwards joining an approved society for the purposes of this Act there shall he credited to the society a capital sum (in this Act referred to as a 'reserve value') calculated in accordance with tables prepared by the Minister, showing that capital sums respectively required in respect of members entering into insurance at ages over sixteen to meet the estimated loss, if any, arising through the acceptance by an approved society of those persons …
We on this side of the House have objected, and in fact all persons connected with the administration of the health insurance scheme, have objected continuously, to government by regulations. Sub-section (3) makes provision whereby new regulations shall be issued in respect of reserve values. Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to explain to the Committee what these regulations are likely to be? For instance, will they upset the ordinary, normal way of dealing with reserve values? There is a way of assessing reserve values. There was a point, in this connection, in Clause 5, with which we have just dealt. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me whether the Sub-section to which I now
refer will cover the case of Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 in respect of which I have not had any reply. The hon. Gentleman is always very courteous in giving replies. They are not always satisfactory or intelligent replies, but at any rate the hon. Gentleman does his best to give us some sort of reply. Although his replies have not always been interesting or intelligent, they have at any rate conveyed some kind of information to persons who are not well informed on these subjects.
Are we securing within this small subsection, and sub-section (3) of Clause 5, a new method of dealing with reserve values? I always thought that it was impossible to assess the reserve value of an assured person except in respect of the amount of contributions paid for him, or his age on entering into insurance. I gather that these Regulations are likely to create a. new basis of assessment. It is a very intricate matter. Only those who administer the funds of approved societies know what reserve values mean. They are the creation of pure paper credits. That is in harmony with Tory morality in finance—to create purely fictitious paper credit without anything to back it. Throughout this Bill, in every Clause, there is concealed something very ominous so far as the approved societies are concerned. I understand that it is proposed here to assess the value of a reserve upon the additional benefits that are to be paid to persons entering approved societies.
Take the case of a man who leaves the Army and Navy insurance fund and joins an approved society. I understand that regulations will be issued creating a reserve value in respect of that individual. How is the reserve value in that case to be assessed unless it be upon either the age of the person or the benefits that he is likely to receive? The Parliamentary Secretary is a master of all these intricate problems. He has explained some of them to us until they are as clear as daylight. I could, however, take him to task, though, as I would not be in order, I would be closured. The Tory mind is a wooden mind. It cannot feel. The Labour party is the party of to-morrow morning and as such is looking to the future. The Tory party is the party of yesterday. But I will go back to reserve
values. The Tory party has no reserves; it plunders other people's reserves. Will the Parliamentary Secretary now explain this little item, included in a nice way in a pocket and concealed, as it were, but with some very big meaning in it for the approved societies?

Sir K. WOOD: I will do my best to answer the questions which the hon. Member has put with his usual ability and fairness. Clause 6, Sub-section (3), says:
Provision may lie made by regulations for such variation of reserve values as appears necessary in consequence of the provisions of this part of this Act.
The first question was whether this in any way affected Clause 5, Sub-section (3), which provides,
Provision may be made by regulations for entitling men of the forces who before the commencement of this Act joined or thereafter join approved societies either during service or within the prescribed period after discharge to participate (subject to such conditions as may be prescribed), in additional benefits provided by those societies, and for prescribing special transfer values applicable to such men.
The answer is that Clause 6, Sub-section (3), does not affect Clause 5, Sub-section (3). At present a man who transfers from the Army and Navy Fund to a society has to undergo a waiting period before he can qualify for additional benefit. There has been a considerable amount of complaint on account of that period of waiting. Because of the £400,000 which we propose to devote to the benefit of these men we shall now be able to make Regulations giving men on their transfer to societies immediate participation in additional benefits.

Mr. DAVIES: Will those Regulations be placed on the Table of the House for inspection?.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, they will be laid, as are all other Regulations under the Act. I dare say the hon. Gentleman will recognise that what is proposed is a very valuable concession to the men concerned. It may be asked what is the reason for Sub-section (3) of Clause 6. If hon. Members look at paragraph 8 of the report of the Government Actuary they will find that owing to changes which are being made for the purposes of this Measure, such as the change of the State proportion from two-ninths to one-seventh, small variations of reserve
values will be necessary. In the aggregate the change of basis will have little effect on the reserves, and the position of each society and branch will be dealt with separately in order to prevent inequalities as between one society and another. So far from being apprehensive regarding the approved societies, the hon. Member ought to realise that this Clause is inserted for their benefit, as hon. Members will see by reading the paragraph of the actuary's report to which I have referred. I agree with the hon. Member in the tribute which he has paid to the actuary, and he will see for himself that the actuary recommends that this Clause ought to be passed in order to protect the societies of the country. I conclude by reading the end of that paragraph because I think it is important. Alluding to the arrangements already made, the actuary says:
In the aggregate, therefore, the existing benefit funds of the approved societies exclusive of surpluses … will be sufficient, with the contributions, to maintain the financial soundness of the system under the new conditions. The position in this respect will, however, be separately examined with reference to each approved society and branch … and provision is made by the Bill for any variations in the reserve value credits which may be found necessary on this examination.
For the purpose of carrying out that recommendation of the actuary this Clause is being inserted, and this Regulation, like the other Regulations will be submitted to Parliament for approval. The hon. Member will then be able to satisfy himself that we have carried out the recommendations of the actuary.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am not sure that the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman—although fairly intelligent—is quite as clear as such an explanation might be. He says the Regulations under Clause 6, Sub-section (3) will not affect Clause 5, Sub-section (3), and he tells us that the Regulations will be laid on the Table—which he seems to regard as a concession for which we ought to be thankful. We have some experience of Regulations which were made under a recent Act of Parliament, and there is scarcely a single hon. Member who could, with any degree of confidence, give an interpretation as to how the Contributory Pensions Act will apply in any one of a dozen different cases. Unless we have
some definite proof that the Regulations under this Clause are going to he more intelligible, then since they affect reserve values—whether those reserve values are fictitious paper credits or not—I shall not be satisfied to allow the Clause to pass unchallenged. The marginal note to this Clause is:
Consequential Amendments of enactments relating to National Health Insurance and variation of reserve values.
Those words create suspicion in my mind. In fact I am hostile to this Clause merely because it affects other Clauses which have already been passed, although they were bitterly contested by Members on these benches. If, by preventing this Clause from passing, we would destroy some parts of the Clauses already passed by the Government's huge majority I should feel I was doing my duty in holding up this Clause. There are other reasons, however, concerning the possible effect of Clause 6 on approved societies. The hon. Gentleman says the regulations will not affect regulations made under Clause 5, Sub-section (3). I do not see how regulations which are made as consequential amendments of previous enactments can fail to affect almost every Clause and Sub-section in the Bill. Recognising the intricate nature of the Bill, I am almost inclined to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for asking him to attempt to clarify this—almost the most complex Bill that ever came before the House of Commons, and one which has been designed specifically to mislead. Embedded in almost every Clause, paragraph and line of it, is some elusive phrase, and this Clause, innocent though it may appear, makes some of the other Clauses workable which fact in itself is sufficient to bring forth all the opposition to it that we can muster. There are no Amendments down to the Clause. It was recognised that if the bigger Clauses were carried there would be no possibility of changing this provision without the consent of the Government. We can, however, take this opportunity of expressing our resentment against the Bill, our hostility to it, and our suspicion, not only of this Clause, but of the whole Measure, and of those who prepared it. We are entitled to point out the consequential evils that are bound to arise from it, both to the approved societies and the individual members.

Mr. PALING: The Parliamentary Secretary in his usual suave manner assures us that this is quite a simple matter and that the regulations of which we are suspicious are designed to help rather than to hinder. Our experience of regulations under this Government has not been happy.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Or most Governments.

Mr. PALING: Yes, or most Governments. I think the only exception would be the Labour Government, and it is because of that that we are suspicious. The same kind of argument that the hon. Gentleman has used in regard to this Clause has been used in regard to every previous Clause in this Bill. Every argument that has come from the Government Benches, with the exception of the speech of one hero, has been designed to prove to us that the whole trend of this Bill was in the direction of giving the 15,000,000 contributors something more than they had already got, and of trying to prove that the £2,800,000, the £1,900,000, the £200,000, I think, in Clause 4, and the £1,100,000 in Clause 5 were going to be taken away from the Funds, and that the people who contributed those Funds would be benefited because of the fact that someone had robbed them of something.
I would like to ask whether the approved societies and the people who will be affected by these regulations have been approached in any way whatever, whether they have any knowledge of what these regulations will be, of how they are likely to be interpreted, and of what they are put down in order to accomplish. Has even the Consultative Committee, about which we have had so much talk on this Bill, been approached on this question? Have they had any say in regard to these regulations? If the regulations are not already issued, will the Consultative Committee be approached before they are issued? The Parliamentary Secretary himself would be the last man in the world to expect us to take this without questioning it in view of what has already gone on, and I ask him if it is possible to give us some satisfaction in regard to these points. This Clause refers to regulations, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary said that the regulations under the last Clause were such as would permit men coming
out of the Service Fund into the national insurance approved societies to take full advantage of the extra benefits that are paid. I would like to ask who is going to provide the extra funds that, I suppose, will be needed in order to provide the extra benefits immediately to the people coming out of the Services Fund when they join the approved societies.
On Clause 5 we have had no explanation of that, or I never heard it, and I sat in the House all the time. I was one of those unfortunate people who tried to get into the Debate, but was ruled out by the Closure which the Government are getting so adept, at using. One would imagine they were afraid of debate on this question, and I do not wonder, in view of the storm of protest that there is in the country against this business, that they seem to be using every hit of power they have got in order to stop this thing being discussed in full. I would like the hon. Gentleman to get up and tell us how much money it will need to give these extra benefits, how many people will be affected, who is finding the money, and whether the approved societies have had any say in the business. In regard to the Regulations that are suggested in Clause 6, I want to ask if the Parliamentary Secretary expects that we can be satisfied with an answer such as he has given, in view of the knowledge that we have, on these benches in particular, of the Regulations that have been issued in connection with the Unemployment Funds during the last 12 months. Hon. Members on this side have no reason to look with any sense of security on any Regulations that may emanate from the Government. Nearly every Regulation laid down by this Government has been designed to make the position of the people affected more difficult than it was before, and it is because of that that we are suspicious that the Regulations in this Clause, harmless and beneficial as they appear after the statement of the hon. Gentleman, will, when they are put into operation, place extra hardships and burdens on the insured contributors.
I should like, the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to tell us in the minutest detail all and everything that is being done, and, if it has not been done, to be man enough to admit that they have done nothing, and that they are going to lay down Regulations in just the manner that
they choose to put them down, and also to admit that the Regulations will be on the same scale and designed to have the same effect as those that have been laid down previously by this Government. I want an answer to these things. Every Member on this side wants an answer. We have received shocking treatment in regard to the Closure, and in regard to Members who have been in charge of the Bill, such as we had on the last Clause, when the Minister lay in a somnolent condition most of the time, while arguments of the most important character were being advanced from these benches, and he did not deign to give any answer. The only answer that he deigned to give was to move the Closure. I suppose that that was much safer than giving an answer, and I think that under the circumstances he was probably wise, but the Under-Secretary, of course, is not quite that type of character. I am pretty sure he desires to give us all the information that could possibly be given, and it is because of that that I am asking him to get up and make the speech of his life.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to take the opportunity of making a few comments in connection with this Clause. In the first place, I possibly might be allowed to congratulate the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Health that we have come to a Clause on which there is not a great amount of controversy. [Interruption.] I do not know about a coalition with the Under-Secretary, as an hon. Friend of mine suggests. I would not contemplate such a thing, and I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary would not want anything like that either. Possibly he would prefer a coalition with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who made the interruption. With regard to Subsection (1), I do not think there is anything in that Sub-section which really calls for comment. The second Subsection is really consequential, although the words have been chosen, possibly, in the same elusive manner in which the previous Sub-section has been drawn, so that one is not sure that our simplicity has not been taken advantage of by the craft and cunning of this unprincipled Government which is in control at the present time. Looking at these two Subsections, there may not be anything con-
cealed which would arouse great opposition, but this Government strikes me as being the sort of Government that would steal a worm from a blind hen, as previous discussions have shown in their treatment of soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have lost their health in the service of the country. But, coming to Sub-section (3), I believe that the Minister will be glad to give us a little more information with regard to that. It states that
Provision may be made by regulations for such variation of reserve values as appears necessary in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act.
We on these benches are very suspicious with regard to the Regulations. We have had a discussion here this week which shows there is a general suspicion on the part of Members of all parties in the House with regard to the Regulations. There was a Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman, who represents me in one capacity in this House, in which he said that we in this country were tending towards Departmental control to far too great an extent, and that we did not want government by regulation for government by law. I believe that we are entitled to get a little more information with regard to these Regulations which are to be made in connection with the
variation of reserve values as appears necessary in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us whether those Regulations will be laid on the Table. I would also like to know whether those Regulations are going to be drawn up by the Minister of Health, on the advice of the officials connected with the Department. Is the Minister of Health to be the individual who is to be responsible for drawing up those regulations? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could indicate that to me right away.

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am right in my supposition. I am very sorry we did not have the opportunity of getting that information a good deal before this, because I want to enter my protest, as I fail to see why the Minister of Health should issue those Regulations to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Sir K. WOOD: Not as far as Scotland is concerned.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry. I, possibly, took the Minister a little bit unawares by my question, and I do not want to press it unduly, seeing that he was courteous enough to respond to the invitation I made to him. I would like to suggest that we come here to a very grave constitutional question, because the Members in this House from my own country have taken occasion previously in the course of these Debates to complain about the way in which the Government have been treating Scotland in connection with these Clauses, and here we have in Sub-section (3) another illustration of the unfair manner in which we Scottish Members are being treated. There is not a representative of the Scottish Office on the Government Bench. When we raised the question on a previous occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in England was good enough to try to give us an answer. He answered a question I put to him relating to Sub-section (3, b) of Clause 2, which says:
the maximum sums as respects the administration expenses of insurance committees and the expenses of the Board shall be such sums as may respectively he prescribed.
I asked him who was to prescribe the sums, and he intimated to me that it was the Scottish Board of Health, and I myself afterwards was, unfortunately, not able to pursue it a little bit further, because the Minister, being in a hurry and somewhat nervous, closured a very important discussion. I notice that a junior member of the Government, the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) has now appeared on the Bench. I do not think his appearance on the Bench at the present time is any answer to the criticism I have made as to the way in which the Government have treated Scotland in regard to this matter, because we are entitled to have a responsible Scottish Minister on the Bench, and not simply a Junior Lord of the Treasury, however much we may appreciate his courtesy and willingness to be of assistance to his fellow Members of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Scottish Board of Health was to prescribe those sums. I read over that paragraph, and I came to the conclusion, that whoever else was to do it, it was not the
Board of Health in Scotland. It does not seem to me to be possible, on the reading of the words themselves, that it should be the Board of Health in Scotland. The expenses of the Board shall be such sums as may be respectively prescribed by the Board. The very Board which is going to spend the money has the power to prescribe the amount. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health shaking his head. On a previous occasion I am reminded that the same Minister got into trouble by shaking his head because he did not know at that time that it was a sort of habit he had, and he could not keep his head still. On that occasion we thought the hon. Gentleman was agreeing with our arguments, but it was very evident when the Minister of Health took part in the Debate that we had been quite mistaken and that what we had witnessed was a physical infirmity.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not know anything whatever about Scotland. Perhaps I am wrong in this because I have just been told that he once saw a Weir house, but I do not think that is any guarantee that he knows anything about Scotland. Here we have Subsection (3) of this fairly non-contentious Clause, and I think it is only right that we should have an assurance from some representative of the Government who has to deal with Scottish affairs. I believe my own colleagues would be quite willing to accept an answer on this matter from the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health who does know something about the conduct of affairs in the Board of Health. We should be even quite willing to listen to the Lord Advocate on this matter, though we should feel doubtful about the Solicitor-General. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Aberdeen—

Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Lord of the Treasury): South Aberdeen.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am very pleased to hear what constituency the hon. and learned Gentleman represents, because I have often wondered. Having got that important information I am very thankful, but I submit that it is not of very great importance so far as this Clause is concerned. This is a matter of some importance to us in Scotland. Some Scottish societies have members in England, and some English societies have members in
Scotland, and I want to know the position which is going to arise in regard to these members by the setting up of these Regulations. The Committee must remember that they are going to be very important Regulations, and there is going to be a lot of money at stake in connection with them. The variation of the reserve values is a matter of very great importance with regard to the future of many of these societies. I submit that, although this Clause seems to have a minor effect, and appears to be simply consequential upon the decisions that have been come to by the Committee, it is still a very important matter as far as the interests of many working people are concerned. It has been evident throughout all these discussions that Members of this house belonging to all parties have found great difficulty in elucidating what the various Clauses really mean. When an enthusiastic member of a society who is anxious to see his society grow from strength to strength and show a decent surplus, in spite of the mean wretched treatment which has been given to these societies by this robbing Government, comes to this sub-section, it is like Robinson Crusoe when he first stepped upon the desert island.
I want the Minister to tell us if these Regulations are going to be submitted to the House. I want him to inform us how we are to have the grave international questions which will arise dealt with under the Regulations to be drawn up by the Ministry of Health and applying to unfortunate people in Scotland, whose societies have an English connection. I submit that some of the people in societies in this country going to Scotland may come to regard this as placing them in an invidious position. In view of the fact that I have put those important considerations before the Committee, and in view of the fact that the Junior Lord of the Treasury representing a Scottish constituency has had time, to search

round to find a responsible Scottish Minister to answer my questions, I would suggest that we should now report Progress in order that we may get a really responsible Scottish Minister to reply to this Debate.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. J. HUDSON: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has given his opinion that this is not a particularly contentious Clause. I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend upon that point, because I think he might have discovered from the presence on the Treasury Bench during the greater part of the discussion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that there was something in this Clause which it was particularly important should be hidden. The responsible Ministers were out of the way while the discussion was going on, and the Parliamentary Secretary was left as an innocent victim to deal with the discussion. At any rate, I feel that be has been victimised by his colleagues. It is most unfortunate that he should have to stand the brunt of the discussion on this Clause. He does not even have the privilege of having his name on the Bill which we are discussing. The Bill is presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was absent all last night when the discussion was going on, and who is absent now during the discussion on this Clause. I suppose he was safely tucked away in his bed during the small hours of the morning, and now I suppose he is having a good dinner, while his hon. Friend is left to face the music in the best way that he can. I complain that this Clause, which refers to certain Schedules—

Sir K. WOOD rose in his plate, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 125.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[9.16 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Apsley, Lord
Bethel, A.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.


Astor, Viscountess
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan


Atkinson, C.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burman, J. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blundell, F. N.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Balniel, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Preston, William


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cassels, J. D,
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Radford, E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, E.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).
Remer, J. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Clarry, Reginald George
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ropner, Major L.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jackson, Sir H, (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major William
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Couper, J. B.
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lord, Walter Greaves.
Skelton, A. N.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Duckworth, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edmonson, Major A. J.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


England, Colonel A.
MacIntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, Sooth)
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Finburgh, S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Forrest, W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Templeton, W. P.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Malone, Major P. B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Ht. Hon. George Clement


Gates, Percy
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn, K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Glyn, Major R. G. C
Meller, R. J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Goff, Sir Park
Merriman, F. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Grace, John
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)
Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Gretton, Colonel John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harland, A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Withers, John James


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Wolmer, Viscount


Haslam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Plicher, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Hills, Major John Waller
Power, sir John Cecil
Bowyer.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Fenby, T. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Clowes, S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Barnes, A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Barr, J.
Connolly, M.
Gosling, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Cove, W. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenall, T.


Broad, F. A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bromfield, William
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bromley, J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Groves, T.


Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.
Grundy, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Duncan, C.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)




Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sullivan, Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Thurtle, E.


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hint, G. H.
Palin, John Henry
Varley, Frank B.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Whiteley, W.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, F.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


Lindley, F. W.
Smillie, Robert
Wright, W.


Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry



Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mackinder, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, T. W.
Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225;Noes,132.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holt, Captain H. P.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Apsley, Lord
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Astor, Viscountess
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balniel, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Barclay, Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.


Bethel, A.
Elveden, Viscount
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Betterton, Henry B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jacob, A. E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G,
Jephcott, A. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Finburgh, S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Blundell, F. N.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gates, Percy.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Goff, Sir Park
Loder, J. de V.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grace, John
Lord, Walter Greaves


Bullock, Captain M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N,
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Burman, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel John
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Grotrian, H. Brent
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacIntyre, Ian


Campbell, E. T.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McLean, Major A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Harland, A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Chapman. Sir S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon, Winston Spencer
Hawke, John Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Margesson, Captain D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Meller, R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Merriman, F. B.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Honnessy, Major J. R G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cope, Major William
Hills, Major John Waller
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Couper, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ropner, Major L.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nuttall, Ellis
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Penny, Frederick George
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wells, S. R.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Pilcher, G.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co, Down)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Pliditch, Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Colonel George


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Preston, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smithers, Waldron
Withers, John James


Radford, E. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wolmer, Viscount


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snail, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Duckworth, John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallhead, Richard C


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


England, Colonel A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T,
Ponsonby, Arthur



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

CLAUSE, 7.—(Short title, constriction and application of Part 1.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. DAVIES: We did not table any Amendments to Clause 7, because we understand that in the main the Clause is consequential on the other Clause of the Measure; but there are one or two
questions I desire to put to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure; and if he will be good enough to follow me I feel sure we shall get much enlightenment on these very important points which I am going to raise. Sub-section (1) gives the new Title of this Measure when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I do not know when that will be. The progress already made does not seem to suggest that it will be an Act of Parliament to-morrow morning at any rate.
Sub-section (2) says:
This part of this Act shall not except as hereinafter provided apply to Northern Ireland.
That is to say the Act will not apply to Northern Ireland although Northern Ireland is, I understand, within this country for all other purposes connected with the National Health Insurance Acts. It will be interesting to learn how it comes about that Northern Ireland is not to be included when, in fact, there are approved societies in this country with their head offices in London and elsewhere which have several branches in Northern Ireland.
The Sub-section goes on to say:
Provided that if provision substantially corresponding to the provision contained in this Part of this Act for making good out of the Reserve Suspense Fund deficiencies due to the provisions of this Part of this Act is made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, His Majesty may by Order in Council apply for the purpose of deficiencies in connection with approved societies or branches of approved societies in Northern Ireland so much of the said Section as relates to the crediting of amounts out of the Central Fund.
I have been accustomed for some time now to reading English literature and, in fact, I have been accustomed, too, to reading speeches of hon. Members opposite, which are fairly good literature or occasions. I told the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago that some of his answers to my questions were very interesting and very informative, but not always intelligent. I feel sure the answers he will give to my questions on this occasion will be all three—informative, intelligent and interesting. The trouble is that we have never had the whole truth from this Government at any time. I put a question the other day
to the Minister of Health and said that my complaint against the Government was not that they were telling some truth, but that they were only telling half the truth about this Bill; and a half the truth is worse than a deliberate falsehood. I do not understand the words I have read to the Committee, and I shall be very much surprised if the draftsman himself understands them; and if the draftsman and myself cannot understand them, how can the hon. Gentleman understand the Clause?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order, I understand, Mr. Hope, that earlier in the evening exception was taken and notice was given of your conduct in the Chair. I wish to ask whether it is the custom in this House, where the impartial judgment of the occupant of the Chair is called in question, more particularly when his impartiality has been challenged by the Leader of the Opposition, to come back into the Chair until the House has had an opportunity of discussing his conduct and thereby delivering a decision upon the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: My duty is to take the Chair, and nothing that has occurred relieves me from that duty.

Mr. MACLEAN: Where the official Opposition has given notice of a Resolution challenging the impartiality of the occupant of the Chair, at any rate until the House has had that opportunity, it is surely not becoming on the part of the Chairman to come back to take the Chair on the same day that the challenge was made and to conduct affairs relating to the same business as that upon which the impartiality was challenged.

The CHAIRMAN: I am rather grateful to the hon. Member for suggesting a way to me of spending a more normal night than the last, but I am afraid nothing he has set forth absolves me from my duty to take the Chair.

Mr. DAVIES: I feel sure the Committee was following me very well in this Chinese puzzle of finance before that interruption. This is not, as I said, good literature, and I am sure now it is not good law. It could not be good law coming from this Government. I was going to say that there are in this country several hundred approved societies, with a membership in Northern Ireland.
without of course a branch organisation which is approved separately for Northern Ireland. Are we going to get from Northern Ireland a quid pro quo—I think I am using the correct words—in connection with the transfer of these reserve funds? The position is this: We shall be called upon under this Clause to transfer moneys from the Central Fund, under the control of the Treasury of tins country, to, some funds either existing or supposed to exist in Northern Ireland. I think it is only fair, therefore, to ask how much more money we are going to give to Northern Ireland. We have sent a great: deal of money to that part of the country already, and I feel sure the insured population will demand information on this point from the Government. I never disturb the House very much except when it comes to problems of social and industrial legislation, in which I am particularly interested. I have done my very best to improve this Measure. I have been partly instrumental in putting on the Order Paper a very large number indeed of Amendments which, if they were all accepted, would bring credit upon this Government, upon the Opposition and upon this House; but the Government has absolutely declined to accept even a comma from the Opposition. I remember now that last evening, or was it this morning, the Minister of Health himself did accept a slight Amendment from an hon. Member below the Gangway, but we do not know whether it was a gift to the insured population or to those persons paying to the Army and Navy insurance fund or not.
The second question I desire to put is this. How much money is there to be transferred per annum per insured person from the funds of the approved societies of this country to Northern Ireland, and vice versa? It would not, I think, be unfair to ask how many persons who are insured under the State insurance scheme ordinarily proceed from this country to Northern Ireland in a year. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual courtesy, will be able to reply; and if it is necessary that, he should enlighten himself on the points raised, perhaps he will be able to quote from the Report of the actuaries and the Royal Commission, so that we may have a clear understanding of what the words in this Clause actually mean.

Sir K. WOOD: This Amendment does not raise the important issues which the hon. Member seems to suggest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up !"] All that this Clause does as far as Subsection (2) is concerned, is to make certain provision in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland bringing in a Bill similar to this Bill so far as that country is concerned. May I remind the hon. Member and the Committee that the National Insurance Act, 1924, applies to Northern Ireland by Section 117. All the provisions of this Bill which we have been discussing so far affect Great Britain alone. If Northern Ireland desires to take steps similar to those which we are taking, they must of necessity do so by their own Bill. If the Government of Northern Ireland adopts a plan similar to the British plan for providing grants out of the Central Fund to assist societies—[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear you!"]—we shall simply make an Order-in-Council to carry out that decision. This Clause does not raise the question of a transference from the Central Fund; it is a matter of administrative convenience.

Mr. THOMAS: This all sounds very innocent in the way the Parliamentary Secretary has explained it. His explanation would seem to convey the idea that this is another of those philanthropic efforts on the part of the Government to help the insured person, but it is significant to observe that this same Government, a few weeks ago, when they were dealing with unemployment insurance in Northern Ireland adopted an entirely different method from the one now dealt with in this Clause. Then, they came to the House and said, "Here is a deficit and unlike the English, Welsh or Scottish unemployed persons, who have to meet their own deficit, we will make a grant from the British Treasury for the aid of Northern Ireland." I suppose that this Clause is another illustration of the way in which the Economy Bill will work. I am interested to know how the matter will affect the members of my own union in Northern Ireland. If in Northern Ireland a Bill is to be introduced, I understand that the object of that Bill will be precisely the same as this Bill, to enable the Northern Ireland Government to do what the British Government has done.

Sir K. WOOD: If they so decide.

Mr. THOMAS: Why should they so decide? They have a much simpler method. They do not need to raid the funds of their approved societies. They can come to their friends on the Treasury Bench. That is what they did in regard to their unemployment insurance, when there was a deficit. When there is a deficit on the Unemployment Insurance Fund in this country, interest has to be paid on it. That is the English way of meeting a deficit. But in the case of Northern Ireland, they came to the Treasury for a grant. Now, the Parliamentary Secretary says that this simple Clause is such that if the Northern Ireland Government think fit, they can take the same course that has been adopted in the present Bill. There is no such possibility.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: There is a possibility? What is their quota?

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether there was any possibility of the Northern Ireland Government taking action similar to that which we are taking. I say there is a possibility, but. I am not in a position to say what their final conclusions may be. In the event of their adopting the same principles as our Bill, they will do the same as we have done. If they come to some other conclusion, they will do differently.

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member has hinted that there is a possibility.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: There is a possibility of Northern Ireland doing the same as the British Government? The Northern Ireland Government, which has been in existence since 1920, may, in order to meet their difficulties, do as the British Government have done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now arrived. I presume that he has come in to hear what we have been saying about him in different parts of to-day.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Nothing to his credit.

Mr. THOMAS: We have just had an explanation of this Clause, which presupposes that the Northern Ireland Government may follow the example of the British Government and raid the Insurance Fund, and this Clause, we are told, has been put in this Bill to encourage them to do it, so that there will be consistency. That is the explanation we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary. I have pointed out that, if that be their intentien, it is totally unnecessary, inasmuch as when they had a deficit on their Unemployment Insurance Fund they came to the British Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them a grant, and he has introduced this Bill to help to make up the deficit. It is because this Clause is not as innocent as it looks that we shall oppose it.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 128.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[9.56 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Bt. Hon. Sir James T.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bullock, Captain M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Apsley, Lord
Burgoyne, Lieut-Colonel Sir Alan
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burman, J. B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Davies, Dr, Vernon


Astor, Viscountess
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Atkinson, C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balniel, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ellis, R. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Elveden, Viscount.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Bethel, A.
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Batterton, Henry B.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Finburgh, S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Blundell, F, N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cope, Major William
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy.


Briscoe, Richard George
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. sir George L.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Goff, Sir Park


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grace, John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
MacIntyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gretton, Colonel John
McLean, Major A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Guinness, Bt. Hon. Walter E.
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l. Exchange)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb' y)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harland, A.
Malone, Major P. B.
Skelton, A. N.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hartington, Marquess of
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hasten, Henry C.
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hawke, John Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hoadlam, Lieut.-Colonel C M.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'il, Henley)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Willsden. E.)


Henderson. Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Hon. O. F, G.(Westm'eland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison, H, (Wilts, Salisbury)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hills, Major John Waller
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Penny, Frederick George
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pilcher, G.
Wells, S. R.


Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, A. M, (Cornwall, Northern)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Bt. Hon. F. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Preston. William
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Jacob, A. E.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Jephcott, A. R.
Radford, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ramsden, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remer, J. R.
Withers, John James


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wolmer, Viscount


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Womersley, W. J.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ropner, Major L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rye, F. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Lord Stanley and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, A. Stewart



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File. West)
Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Greenall, T.
Lunn, William


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Barnes, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.


Barr, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacLaren, Andrew


Satey, Joseph
Groves, T.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Broad, F. A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
March, S.


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnin, H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Owen, Major G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Paling, W.


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Crawturd, H. E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potts, John S.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, B. J. (West Houghton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.


Dennison, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Duckworth, John
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Duncan, C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scrymgeour, E.


England, Colonel A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Fenby, T. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Forrest, W.
Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, F.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.




Smillie, Robert
Thurtle, E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Snell, Harry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Varley, F. B.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Stamford, T. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Windsor, Walter


Stephen, Campbell
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sullivan, Joseph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhono[...])



Sutton, J. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Westwood, J.
Mr. C. Edwards and Mr. Warne.


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Whiteloy, W.

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of s.4 Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, 15 and 16; Geo. 5, c. 69.)

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask you, Mr. Hope, whether, to avoid difficulties which seem to arise continuously in connection with this Debate, you will give the Opposition some indication of what you propose to do with the various Amendment that deal with different aspects of the question, as we want to try and avoid, if possible, the possibility of being prevented from having a discussion on certain points.

The CHAIRMAN: I must not be understood to give a final ruling in these matters, because it must depend to some extent on the course of the Debate, but I propose to allow the widest possible discussion on the first Amendment—to leave out Sub-section (1)—which really seeks to leave out the main object of the Clause. Then I shall be disposed to allow a discussion on a later Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)—in page 7, line 24, to leave out from "the" to "the" in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words "fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven." The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Connolly)—to leave out Sub-section (2)—appears to me to be contingent stout the accept a. nee or otherwise of the first Amendment to leave out Subsection (1).

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23. to leave out Sub-section (1).
This Sub-section is the main operative provision dealing with the financial proposals and reads thus:
(1) As from and after the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six until the expiration of the extended period as defined in Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, the contribution payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1925, out of
moneys provided by Parliament shall he a contribution of such an amount as may be determined by the Treasury to be approximately equivalent, haying regard to the estimated proportions in which contributions are payable in respect of men, women, boys and girls, to the sum which would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of insured persons and exempt persons at the respective rates set out in the Second schedule to this Act.
The Second Schedule of the Bill shows the proportion of charge that will fall to be made, if this Clause is carried, from Treasury grants as the State's contribution towards the financial provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A memorandum was issued explaining the Clauses of the Bill and according to that explanation
The Exchequer contributions in 1925–26 at the 6¾rate is estimated to amount to £13,555,000. Under the Act of 1925, it would during. 1926–27 have been £15;900,000, taking the 8d. rate, or, if the 9d. rate had been payable throughout the year— £17,750,000. Under the proposals in the Bill the Exchequer contribution to the Unemployment Fund in 1926–27 is estimated at £12,160,000, a saving as compared with the provisions of the Act of 1925 of £3,740,000 per annum at the minimum or £5,590,000 per anti fit the maxi mum.''
It clearly sets out that the minimum reduction of the Stale contribution will be £3, 740,000 and that it may under certain circumstances rise to a possible amount of £5,500,000.Whatever may have been the justifiable expressions of indignation at the financial proposals restricting the State's contribution the State's contribution under Part. I of this Bill the justification for increased indignation is mere than provided by idea by the proposals under the second part. In the first place, we have been healing with surpluses, but in this case the Government proposes to withhold contributions from a fund that is at the moment in deficiency. Let us take the proportionate importance of robbing the unemployed worker of the possibility of participating in a £4,000,000 contribution from the State, a sum which I pet as the average amount to be withheld in the future, side
by side with the proportions of the National Budget which the Chancellor will soon be called upon to raise, Members will find that I am within the mark when I say that the yearly joint contribution to this fund will be between £38,000,000 and £40,000,000, and that, in proportion to that annual income, the Government propose to diminish it by £4,000,000 in order to meet the national emergencies of a Budget of £800,000,000. Who can best afford to make the sacrifice? A Fund that is £7,000,000 in deficiency, that has an annual income of only £40,000,000, or the larger and wider sources that are at the call of the Government in raising revenue for the national service of £800,000,000. I submit that the £800,000,000 can best bear the strain of having made up to it from other sources this sum of £4,000,000, compared with the injustice that would be inflicted by robbing the unemployed worker and his dependants of the full use of that sum, small in proportion to the £800,000,000, but important in proportion to the £40,000,000 National resources are raised from many and varied spheres. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer eased the well-to-do, and he now looks to the poverty-stricken poor of the nation to make good £4,000,000 towards the contribution he had repaid to those whose general taxation -he eased in his last Budget. I do think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have looked somewhere else.
May I quote from a further White Paper that has been issued giving the tables of national expenditure, in order to refer to the item of Treasury grants for the purpose of unemployment In this White Paper it is shown that in 1914–15 the contributions from the State for unemployment was £600,000 and the estimate for 1925–26 was £13,105,000. There is, of course, no comparison between the two periods, because in 1914–15 there were only about 4,000,000 industrialists insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. In 1920 there was a large increase, and the number was brought up to about 12,500,000. It seems to me that the price the State is paying through its contributions towards easing the distress in the country has been a very light one for the result that has accrued in a more pacific atmosphere amongst the workers of the country who would otherwise have been driven by very desperation by more
aggravated acts than we are pleased to see they have indulged in up to the moment. It. is necessary to review the ebb and flow in the State's contribution in dealing with the financial aspect of unemployment schemes.
In 1911, when the original Unemployment Insurance Act was passed, the scale of contribution enabled the Fund to accumulate a surplus of £22,500,000 by 1920. Then, in 1920, the nation was confronted with two very disagreeable aspects ill relation to unemployment. There was the rapid demobilisation of the service men, and the State itself at that time, from 1918 to 1921, promoted a scheme called the Unemployment Donations for ex-service men. It took that liability upon itself, it met those charges. But after the Act of 1920, it took over the £22,500,000 of surplus standing to the credit of employers, workmen and the State, and included within the scope of operations another 8,500,000 industrialists. The State said in effect: many of you are unable to qualify by contribution to the Fund, but we propose to take over the £22,500,000 that has accumulated to the credit of the Fund, and we arc going to put into benefit at once as many of you as may be able to prove that at some time or another you were employed in a trade scheduled tinder the Unemployment Insurance a; although you may not be able to show any stamp qualification, or establish any right, the mere fact that you are out of work, and were once employed in a trade covered by the Act will enable us to use the £22,500,000 of surplus, and put a large number of you unemployed persons at once into benefit under the Act of 1920.
That shows that unemployment contributors have borne more than their fair quota of the responsibility in helping the nation out of what truly is a national calamity, for which the insured persons were in no way directly responsible. But you did more. I put this particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been looking around and raking up these little scraps, which mean so much to the funds, but so little in comparison with the greater volume of revenue to be raised. These ex-service men were on unemployment donation up to the end of 1920. Early in 1921 they were transferred from the State provisions to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance
Act, and were thrown on to the Unemployment Fund. The State did not increase its contribution. The State was relieved of the payment of the unemployment donation paid to ex-service men, to whom so much had been promised. The ex-service men were transferred to the Unemployment Fund. That is one reason why we say that the Governments live register does not register the full volume of unemployment, because many of these ex-service men had not a honk to lodge and could never qualify for benefit under the later developments of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. How did you repay them the £22,500,000? You repaid them by restricting your responsibility to the general fund, thus adding to the other indignities that you I have heaped on the workers from time to time in that respect.
Apart from the transfer of the ex-service men in 1921, the State at that time, under the 1920 Act, was making a contribution equivalent to one-fifth of the total. After the employers' contribution had been balanced up, the workmen's contribution and the State's contribution thrown in, the State's proportion of the total was only one-fifth. You were entirely out of your reckoning as to the financial liability that you ought to carry in the matter. So clearly insufficient was the financial provision that in March, 1921, the funds were exhausted, the balance had been used up, and you came to Parliament. and Parliament authorised an advance from the Treasury up to £10,000,000. The Government said: "We will not pay more than one-fifth of the total as a contribution." hut within six months of the passing of the 1920 Act, owing to the great increase in the volume of unemployment which occurred early in 1921, they found that their financial provision had been so meagre that they were compelled to come to Parliament and ask that the Treasury should be permitted to advance up to £10,000,000. They did not even make the advance free of interest, but charged interest upon it, as they are now charging interest on the outstanding amounts which had to be borrowed in order to ease the nation of a responsibility which more directly concerns the State than it does the contributing partners in the unemployment scheme.
Not more than three months had passed before the Government again came before Parliament and said that £10,000,000 was not enough. The Treasury were then given power to advance up to £20,000,000. Thus, as can be seen from the actuarial statement which we had, within a year of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, there was the possibility, not only of using the £22,000,000 which had been brought forward—as also the contributions made in the interim— but, in addition, there was the possibility of a deficit of £20,000,000. A surplus of £22,000,000 was turned into a deficit of £20,000,000 within less than 12 months, and all the time the State's responsibility was restricted to one-fifth of the total income to the. Fund. Commencing On a basis like Putt had resulted in much trouble, and constant re-adjustment was necessary, and that fact ought to have weighed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he asked the Minister of Labour to allow him to reduce the future contributions of the State to the Fund. There was something more—and I ask the Committee to follow the sequence of these events. In March, 1921, the Government found it necessary to come to the House far another Act of Parliament. Early in 1921 there was an amending Measure, the object of which was to increase the payments of the contributors. The Government said, in effect, that they had suddenly thrown on to a new piece of machinery a heavy load which it was incapable of bearing, and so they raised the contributions of the workers to 5d. and of the employers to 6d., but the State contribution remained at the dead level of one-fifth. Under the 1920 Act the contributions had been 4d. workers, 4d. employers and 2d. from the State. Even at that time they ought to have had a more serious re-adjustment of the position, and the Government ought to have recognised their responsibility in the matter.
But 1921 was not allowed to pass without even another Act, because the 1921 No. 2 Act came along, and we find there that in consequence of the full use of the £20,000,000 for which they could call upon the Treasury, after raising the contribution of the worker and the employer, and still bearing their one-fifth of the total proportion, even that was not enough, and with all the talk of people on the dole and people getting something for nothing, all the time hundreds of
thousands of these men were ex-service unemployed men for whom you were previously responsible. Why did you not carry that burden over to the Fund rather than restricting your own responsibilities and having constantly to introduce amending Acts to increase the contributions? The second Act of 1921 increased the workmen's contribution by 2d. and the employers' contribution by a like amount, making the original 4d. of the workmen under the 1920 Act 7d., and the 5d. under the 1920 Act for the employers 8d., the State carrying the dead level proportion of one-fifth. Statesmen then could see that the Fund was bankrupt, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to make provision for it. Willy Hilly it had to be done. You could not afford a week to go by with no unemployment payment there for the men who had been signing on and whose dependants required ordinary sustenance. You had Co provide the money, and consequently you said: "We will provide it in this way: You can draw up to £20,000,000, and you must have your own contributions increased by 75 per cent., but our proportion will still be one-fifth," about which, of course, at a later period, I hope to say something more.
I am really serious over this matter, and I am sometimes rather led to the belief that in all the mushing up and the turmoil of the long period from late 1920 up to the present— over five years of the keenest distress that any nation has been confronted with and that every nation would pray it would never be overtaken by again—the impress on industry by direct taxes and on the workers' wages as well, has been out of all proportion to the responsibility accepted by the State as the third person in this matter. But you did something else in 1921. Is it not strange that the statesmen of the day in 1920, foreseeing the enormous volume of unemployment and the great slump in trade and industry, could not see three months ahead of them in the 1920 Act, and within a year introduced a Section in the second 1921 Act providing for the deficiency period? That is the first time it appears, within 12 months of the great scheme for making provision ahead for the unemployed of the country, who were suffering in consequence of the aftermath of the War. In that particular matter I think one is bound to call attention to
Clause 2 of the 1921 (No. 2) Act, which says:
Section two of the Act of 1921 (which makes provision with respect to contributions) shall have effect as if the rates set out in the Schedule to this Act were substituted for the rates set out in the First Schedule to that Act, and as if 'fourpence ' were therein substituted for 'twopence,' anti the provisions of that Section providing for increases in the rates of contribution shall continue in force until the expiration of the deficiency period or the first day of July, 1923, whichever is the later, and the contribution to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be increased accordingly.
Within 12 months you have to provide for such a period, to make sure there shall be nothing to bring about a reduction of the contributions. Even then you had such great foresight that you thought all the unemployment problem was going to be got rid of by 1923. You say "the first day of July, 1923," or "the expiration of the deficiency period," but you estimated that 1923 would have seen you out. I think the basis of that calculation was entirely wrong, and has led to the whole financial mix-up of this scheme that has found its way in various forms in these various Acts of Parliament. I would also like to call attention again that up to April, 1922, or somewhere about then, £17,000,000 of the £20,000,000 open to the Treasury to help it out of difficulties had been used, because in April, 1922, you again come to the House and say that the power to advance to the Treasury up to £20,000,000 is not great enough. You are still within the serious and dangerous area; you cannot escape it. You say then that the Treasury might be permitted to grant up to £30,00,000. You therefore increase the draw on the Treasury from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000.
Would not one have thought at that stage you had really got to a serious pass, and that the State liability should not be restricted to one-fifth of the total, allowing you to draw on the Treasury, charging an interest against the contribution on the outstanding amounts. It does seem to me that to come along now, having gone through all this turmoil, and say that your deficiency is only £7,000,000 instead of £17,500,000 or more at one time, and now, because you are not quite so much in debt, it will not matter if the deficiency period is extended another year or two, and keep you to your contributions in order to ease
the State from a £4,000,000 contribution to the Fund. Because the contributions were not enough, the Act of 1922, according to the First Schedule, says that the workman should pay 9d. per week. That raised him another 2d. The employer was to be raised another 2d. to 10d. per week. The State there for the first time recognised that it might do a little bit more. The workman had come from 4d. in 1920 to 9d. in 1922. The employer had come from 5d. in 1920 to 10d. in 1.922. The State says now we will concede a little more than one-fifth and raise it to one-fourth, and so the Treasury contribution was one-fourth of the total sum accruing. One might say that that was a generous act on the part of the Government of the day, but there is something more in it. I wonder how many people in the country believe anything other than that the State machinery is provided for out of State money. That is quite misleading and does not prevail. You have paid up to this date one-fifth of the total but you are the dominant partner, and you make the Act and the Regulations.
Up to that stage you had been taking one-tenth of the income of the Fund for administration, and you had powers to use up to 10 per cent. of the total income of the Fund for administration purposes. Under the Act of 1922 you took powers to increase that 10 per cent. to 12½, per cent. In order to meet that extra cost of administration, you raised your contribution from one-fifth to one-fourth of the total. I do not suppose that will be questioned, because here is the Report of the Committee which held meetings upstairs upon this matter, and I find that statements were made by myself upstairs. Of course, I know it is not usual for hon. Members to quote their own statements, but what I said at that time shows that while £3,750,000 was taken out of the contributions last year, £38,000,000 was the sum above the total of contributions, and £62,000,000 had been spent. Tile other £24,000,000 represents the deficiency or draws that went to the deficiency account. I mention this to show that this was done in order that you might be in a position to draw more in that respect.
We were not done with Acts of Parliament on unemployment then. You had gone from 4d. to 9d. for the workmen, and from 5d. to 10d. for the employer,
but you had another Act in 1923 providing for a continuance of the rates during the deficiency period and fixing a maximum scale afterwards. That will be found in Section 4 of that Act. It will also be found that about that time a Memorandum was issued, in which the Government undertook that, so long as the deficiency period lasted, so long would their contribution last. The deficiency period is not at an end, and the scale still maintains the 9d., the 10d., and the State's proportion of one-fourth of the total. It provides that the Minister himself shall determine when his arrangement shall end, but that, after the deficiency period is wiped out, it shall come to an end at the following July period, when, of course, the deficiency period may be looked upon as being automatically wiped out. I am sure hon. Members of the House will quite understand. But they did something more, and this is what I put as being in the nature of a breach of contract, a breaking of faith with the men who come from 1920 right down to this period of 1923, the stage which I have reached at the moment, when these men all the time had been suffering and paying, and the State said that, so long as the deficiency period lasted, it would make a contribution on a certain basis.
The deficiency period is still here, but you are going to take away from the Fund part of your contributions. Yon say that, after the deficiency period, the maximum contributions will be so much, but you have not arrived at that stage just yet, and, consequently, it is perhaps rather too much to anticipate what will he the action of the Government of the day then. All I can hope is that then the Government will be a Labour Government, and that they will accept a nearer margin of their responsibility than the Government did up to 1923. We are very often asked, "What did you do?" We are often naked to what extent the Labour party is better than its predecessors in this connection. I will tell the Committee one thing where they at least have recognised a modicum of responsibility to the extent to which their own Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit them to meet an increased financial responsibility. We had a different Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, who comes along in 1926 and says,
"You have got to help me by easing me of £4,000,000 from that Fund." In 1924 the Government of the day said: "We will be third partners in finance and in responsibility. Whatever the income from employer and workman may be, we will add one-third." I think it will be appreciated that the advance to one-third from the one-fifth of 1920 is a great advance in that matter.
I ought perhaps to quote this exactly, because it appears for the first time in an Act of Parliament. I have all along urged, upon every occasion, that the State has no right to have full control of administration, to make the Regulations and restrict the Regulations and rules. No other person could interfere with them at all; they did the whole of that, and then got away without the full financial responsibility. They do it, not out of the fulness of their desire to make a contribution, but they take from the fund not 10 per cent. but powers to utilise 12½ per cent. They came from one-fifth of the total to one-fourth, because they knew that that difference represented the extra 2½ per cent. they wanted to take from the income of the fund. It is no earthly use saying that the State does its part in this business. There are ex-service men who should have been on unemployment benefit or receiving an adequate pension to take them out of the realm of the unemployment donation, charge or benefit, if the State had not parcelled them all over on to the Unemployment Fund. Many of them to-day are disqualified because they are partially incapacitated and not likely to be rehabilitated into any industrial concern. Some of the men represent the wreckage of the transference on to the fund of the Unemployment Act of the Government of 1920.
I can quite imagine in that respect that the Chancellor will say, "Do not hold me responsible, for goodness sake, for the Act of 1920." I would not care to do that. There was quite a hotel-potch in 1920. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was one of them !"] If he was, he will take his share of the responsibility. I do not believe he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Otherwise, perhaps he would not have been satisfied with only making a contribution of one-fifth. He would have wanted to restrict their payment into the Fund, and our opposition would
have been more vigorous than it is now, although it must reach the utmost limit of our capacity to express it without expletives, but in order that it may be thoroughly understood, not as representing a mere pious thought but an innermost feeling that something more ought to be done than the act committed at the moment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Section 5 of the 1924 Act.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it !"]. I am going to read this one because, in this case, for the first time, appears that one-third responsibility, Real partnership You speak of co-partnership. You say, Let us all give of our best; but you do not do that. While you give lip service to it outside, in this case you say, "We will take all we can, whether you give it freely or not, and will give as little in return." Our responsibility must be your burden and not the burden of the State at all, and so Section 5 of the 1924 Act reads this way:
Sub-section (1) of Section five of the 1924 Act—"The contributions to be made for the purposes of Section 5 of the principle Act out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be at the rate equal to one-half of the aggregate amount of contributions paid in respect of the employed person by himself and his employer, or, in the case of an exempt person, paid by his employer, and Sub-sections (3) and (7) of the said Section five shall have effect accordingly.
Perhaps I ought to keep hon. Members acquainted with the principal Act, but I take it that Heathers of the House who have followed these things so diligently still quite, have in their minds what Section 5 of the 1924 Act means. At all events this Act, in providing for payment, says that the State shall from funds proved by Parliament pay a half of the contributions as paid by the employer and workman, representing really a third of he total. It may seem strange that here is a national Parliament that ought to have great foresight, that ought not perhaps to be worrying the House for a new Act; of Parliament on the Statute Book, particularly on unemployment, as if it was a fleeting episode. I think the 1925 Act was the fifteenth Act dealing with unemployment, so T am not quoting the many Acts, as I might have done, because every one of them has a bearing upon this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take, £4,000,000 away from them when they are in these distressing circumstances. Here again you find that
this Act very cleverly introduces quite another principle, a financial one, about which no doubt either the Chancellor or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will perhaps have in mind.
The 1925 Act, of course, again made provision for a variation in contribution. These variations in contribution have been rendered necessary, I believe, by reason of the other Act of social insurance which found its way On to the Statute Book. Section 4, paragraph (a). says:
As from and after the fourth day of Jannary, 1926, and therefore during the remainder of the deficiency period as defined in Section 16 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, and during a further period thereafter, ending on such date as the Minister may by order prescribe, not being a date later than the first day of the insurance year, commencing next after the end of the aforesaid deficiency period (the aggregate of winch two periods is in this Section referred to as the extended period ') the contributions payable as aforesaid by the employed persons and their employers ball he at the respective rates set out in the first Schedule to this Act.
11.0 p.m.
The First Schedule to the Act shows the revised payments. I am sure hon. Members will see that as you come from 4d. up to 9d. as the workmen's contribution, as the Treasury advanced, or was willing to advance, up to £30,000,000 to meet deficiencies, for which they charged a rate of interest., as they themselves took from the Fund not. 10 per cent. but 12½ per cent. for administration, here is an accumulation of misdeeds until you come to the little shining light that some of my right hon. Liberal Friends used to quote as being the beam of light that opened up a new era and much brighter prospects. A land for heroes ! All our troubles were to be dispelled. Quite naturally, the Labour Government thought that it would direct its penetrating beams upon the situation, in order to bring a measure of comfort and ease to the people. They provided that one-third should be our share. Compare that with the Act of the previous Government. [Laughter.] It is no joke to me. It is no joke to the people outside, who have to pay contributions. It is no joke to those who were affected when, owing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Ministry of Labour had to save £6,500,000
and had to impose regulations which swept thousands of people off the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There was a sweep of £6,500,000 on one occasion, and £4,000,000 on another occasion, and we are told that these are only little bits. These little bits mean a big meal in the cottage.
A little bit of £4,000,000 out of a Budget of £800,000,000 is small in comparison, but £4,000,000 withdrawn from the purchase of the necessities of life and, incidentally, the sweeping of thousands of people off the Unemployment Insurance Fund on to the boards of guardians, is no joke to the people affected. It is no joke to those of us who have gone through it.
The country does not appreciate the great sacrifice made by the contributors since 1920. They do not appreciate to the full the meagureness of the contributions that have been made by the general taxpayers in comparison with the sacrifices which have been made by the insured contributors. After the Act of 1925, the amount of contribution for unemployment insurance was dropped by 2d., The amount contributed by the employer was also dropped by 2d., which was re-imposed in order that the Government might introduce a social insurance scheme, which is not a full scheme, and which is not a full mothers' pensions scheme. They led the people outside to understand that it would only cost them 2d. The Government did not really reduce the contributions; they only transferred them for the purpose, of another Measure of social insurance. The people now have to pay 9d., plus another 2d., making 11d. for unemployment and social insurance, compared with 4d. in 1920.
It is true that further benefits have been given in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pension scheme and where those benefits are applicable they very welcome and useful, and do something to ease the situation. It is arising from that that the Government are making their present proposal. You have got to the stage when you say to the workman that he will have to pay 2d. more, and you will take 2d., off your contribution, and that. 4d. will be transferred to your contribution for widows' and orphans' pensions. But you have altered your percentage payment from one-third of the total of that Fund, and you will bring it back again to one
fourth. How do you manage that? The State's contribution for 10 years, payable to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pension Fund, is at the rate of £4,000,000 a year.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Five point seven million pounds.

Mr. HAYDAY: Now you see the hand of the artful dodger ! How is the State going to pay that five point seven million pounds? Does that represent a new responsibility of the State, or does it not represent what you are to take away from the Unemployment Fund? Your figure of what you propose to save is rising from £3,740,000 to a possible £590,000. It is significant, that that represents just your contributions to widows, orphans and old age pensions. Of what advantage is that, if you are now going to say to the Labour Minister, "Tighten up your Regulations, because you cannot have your deficiency period going on. You will have £4,000,000 a year less to meet it. You will have to chop some more off "? How does it ease the position if you are going to create a state of circumstances that creates widows and orphans by denying to the men the necessities of life, and harassing them between the hoards of guardians and the committees they have to meet—and there are cases of suicide and desperation going on—how does, it profit these people if you take away £4,000,000 that would give physical maintenance and enable a man to fend for himself, and hand it over as a contribution to the widows and orphans who will be left behind?
I want to take this opportunity again to point out that your live register figures do not represent the volume of your problem. From 1920 or from the early part of 1921 up to the present you hive had numbers varying from one [...] one and a-half millions of unemployed parsons. Gather in to that number their dependents and see what a large percentage of our population have during that five years travelled through the medium of unemployment relief under the Act. Try to imagine it if you can. I could take you to a little place, not far from Victoria Station, round seine of the slums, near Parliament itself and almost within earshot of our voices. You have that to contend with. I do say that you have gone the way already to give
a false impression to the country from your unemployment register. Why You want your live register to conic down to a maximum represented by 1,030,000, in the hope that after you have taken the £4,000,000 State grant away, the income will then be sufficient to meet the outgoings, and within three or four years you hope to clear your deficiency period.
Is it too late to urge that this is such a small thing that you might hold your hand? Your previous inroads were where there were surpluses available for extra benefit. Here you are making an inroad when the cupboard is empty, and where there is a deficiency and the brokers are at the door, figuratively speaking. There is no hen roost here to raid, only just the stark gaunt spectre of further depression and discontent possibly as the result of an Act like this. It is not worthy of a great nation such as we are, and certainly ought never to be touched by any self-respecting Chancellor of the Exchequer who, if he is in difficulties, ought to tap the sources which can better afford to make the sacrifice. He might even call for an increasing volume from where the surpluses are, in order that you might transfer some of them to where the deficiencies require making up, and give us fair play and a decent chance to recover from the long years of depression and distress.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MNISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): During the long time I have known the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee, I have always been filled with admiration for his historical knowledge of this long series of Acts. I speak with complete sincerity when I refer to his very intimate knowledge of this very complicated series of enactments in the present Unemployment Insurance Acts.
I think the Committee will agree with me if I say that it would perhaps be convenient at this, stage to state in a word or two what exactly the proposal contained in the Bill means, and how far it affects the existing Section of the Act. The first point I want to make perfectly clear is this, that the proposal does not in any way involve any increase of contribution by the employer or the employed. The contributions remain exactly the same. The second point I want to make
perfectly clear—I am certain the Committee would not have gathered it from the speech which has just been made—is that it involves no reduction at all of any benefit paid to any insured person, nor does it affect in any way the conditions under which the benefits are paid. In the third place, it relates entirely to the State contribution during the extended period. I need not detain the Committee by explaining what the extended period is, but practically it is the deficiency period with a few weeks or months added. The present contributions by the State, under the Act of 1925, are a little complicated, and it may not be a waste of time, as we are having a general discussion which will to sonic extent cover subsequent Amendments, to explain exactly what they are. Up to January, 1928, they arc for men 8d. and for women 7d., with correspondingly smaller payments for boys and girls; but after January, 1928, that sum of 8d. for men is reduced to 7d. and the sum of 6d. for women is reduced to 5½d.
There is a further provision relating to what is called the contingent penny, which the State will pay under certain circumstances. The result of the proposal is that there would be a saving in the State contribution of £3,740,000 up to January, 1928, out after January, 1928, for the reason I have given, the saving would be less because after that date to the end of the extended period the State contribution is less. After January, 1928, the saving to the State would he £1,800,000 a year when I the contingent penny came into operation there would be an additional charge to the State of about £1,800,000 a year.
When the Bill of 1925 was under discussion these very intricate calculations were based, as they were bound to be, upon the estimate which the Government had of the number of persons likely to be on the register Upon the best calculations which we could get, aria with the utmost desire to form the best conclusions possible as to the situation that was likely to arise, we estimated a live register of 1,300,000 persons. Everybody in the House, I am sore, has been glad that our calculation was falsified and that the number of persons on the live register has been,
from that time to this, a good deal less than 1,300,000 persons. On 29th March of this year the number on the register was 1,013,600.

Mr. BATEY: Are those the latest figures?

Mr. BETTERTON: The latest figures which I have purposely omitted include the Easter week which does not give us a fair criterion of the situation. According to our proposals, the fund will balance on a register of 1,030,000, and we feel that with the figures as they now are we are justified in reducing the sum from the sum provided by the Act of 1925 to that which is proposed in the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: Would the Parliamentary Secretary follow that up by telling us what proportion of the difference between the number on the live register and on the live register when the calculation was made is due to the new Regulations and men being transferred to another liability?

Mr. BETTERTON: That question was the subject of an examination which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour caused to he made by the very eminent statisticians at his disposal, and they found, in Command Paper 2601, that the number of persons who ceased to be registered on account of stricter benefit conditions is lees than 13,700 and, probably, not more than 10,000.

Mr. BATEY: We can give you more than 13,100 in the County of Durham.

Mr. BARR: is it not true that in connection with the stricter regulations introduced in February, 1925, it was reported in this House that in one week no less than 11,000 had been withdrawn on that account?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is difficult to discuss this matter unless the hon. Gentleman has the statement before him. One answer to the hon. Member is, that the number of persons disallowed benefit, who can still continue to register is continually going up, and has gone up from 20,000 in January, 1924, to 80,000 in January, 1926. The number of persons disallowed who continue to register is constantly rising.

Mr. BATEY: What document is that?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is Command Paper 2601, which was issued about three weeks ago.
To return to the figures in the Bill. We calculated that for every 10,000 above or below the figure of 1,030,000 the debt of the Fund to the Treasury will increase or diminish as the case may be by the figure of £380,000 per annum. I do not think I need say anything more in explanation of the Clause. I have endeavoured to point out the reasons that scorn to us to justify the making of these alterations, and I have endeavoured to make as clear as I can what, at best, must be a very intricate and complicated subject.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We all agree that the hon. Gentleman has given an admirable explanation, but certainly no justification of the Clause. This is the first time I have intervened in the debate on this Bill, primarily because my command of language rendered it quite impossible for me to express my opinion about the Clauses of the Bill, but I was glad to see here to-night the chief ventriloquist, whose voice has been heard in the proposals of this Bill, but whose fleeting figure has only been seen during Divisions. I note that he is no longer in his place, but I assume the right hon. Gentleman came in for part of this discussion, because this is the largest item of plunder which he expects to get as a result of the Bill. We on this side have, almost exhausted our powers of vituperation regarding this Measure, and the dictionary of Parliamentary language is quite inadequate to express what many of us feel bout Clause 8. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in connection with this Bill likened the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a cat burglar. I think he was paying the right hon. Gentleman undue honour. After all, one may admire the dash and courage of the cat burglar, but I would prefer to describe this and other Clauses of the Bill as a species of pocket-picking of a particularly mean kind. It is particularly mean because first he picks one pocket and then he picks another pocket belonging to people of the same class. We had in the first seven Clauses a series of illustrations of petty thefts from 15,000,000 insured workers under the Health Insurance Acts. We have in Clause 8 a more subtle form
of plunder from about 12,000,000 people insured under the Unemployment Insurance scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary assures us it really means no increase in contributions, no reduction of benefit, no alteration of conditions, and that it only deals with the State contribution during the extended period. That is true, but it is worth following the thimble-rigging of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. His supporters on the Government benches were led to believe during the discussions on the Widows. Pension Bill that there was a pea under one of the thimbles. There was to be an increased State contribution in respect of unemployment insurance to compensate for the reduction in the contributions of employers and workers in order to reduce the burden on industry. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequor at that time temporarily put a pea under the thimble, or did he know at that time that he was misleading his own supporters, that he never intended to give any assistance from the Exchequer to the widows' pensions scheme indirectly, and that really all that he was doing was pretending that there was a pea under the thimble, or, if there was one there, that he was going to extract it at the earliest possible moment? He has done that now, and the argument, as understand it, is based on the assumption that, it is possible now, because the official figures for unemployment are less than they were last summer, to reduce the State contribution and not really prolong the deficiency period. In other words, this proposal is based on the assumption that the present figures for unemployment are not going to increase, but many of us on this side do not accept that assumption.
I leave aside the gerrymandering of the figures and the regulations, with a view to bringing down as speedily as possible the 1,030,000, and point to this fact, that the only substantial reductions in the figures during recent months have been in the coal industry and in the heavy metal industries peculiarly dependent upon the coal industry, and if circumstances should arise, whether through a cessation of the subsidy or some analogous cause, which would result in increasing prices for coal, the unemployment percentage in the mines would, I say, rise to 40 per cent., and with that increase in unemployment in the coal
industry we should have an increase in unemployment in the iron and steel trades and industries which have in recent months been profiting as a result of the lower prices following upon the subsidy. If that be true, then quite clearly the effect of the reduction of the State contribution is going to be to prolong the deficiency period. It is also going to increase the proportion of the contribution towards abolishing that deficiency made by employers and workers. It is in a sense comparatively and proportionately increasing the contributions of the workers and employers as compared with the State contribution. So far as the abolition of the deficit on the Fund is concerned and in so far as this proposal to reduce the State contribution does prolong the deficiency period, it is going to put in jeopardy the benefits of the unemployed workers, because the right hon. Gentleman's colleague might easily be induced to come forward with another iniquitous Unemployment Insurance Bill still further to degrade the conditions of benefit, on the ground that there is a deficiency on the Fund, and that, with the existing contributions, benefits cannot be paid on the same scale or for the same length of time.
This so-called economy is being obtained at the expense of the unemployed worker in the future, for whom, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not care a brass farthing. Why should he? He is too concerned in saving about 1 per cent. of the national expenditure, but to Members on this side Clause 8 is about as iniquitous a Clause as there is in this Bill. Our view is that as a measure of true national economy, the State contribution to unemployment insurance ought to be substantially increased in order that larger benefits might be paid out of the fund to unemployed workers, and in order that the drain upon the Poor Law and local authorities should be reduced. That method of dealing with the situation would mean a wiser expenditure of our public money than this method of dealing with the unemployment scheme. We world welcome a very substantial increase in the State contribution. So far from it being too generous, it is at the present time too small, with the result that the benefits which are payable under
the Act are admittedly—and it has been admitted in a fairly recent Government report—inadequate in themselves for the unemployed worker and his family, and with the result that the benefits are being eked out at the present time by poor relief, and by relief works of local authorities. It would be in the real interests of economy as far as possible to reduce the burden of the rates upon industry and transfer the burden to the National Exchequer. Instead of making real progress in the cause of national economy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Clause 8 is moving backwards. With a desire at this moment to save something between £3,750,000 and £5,500,000, he is prepared to do a serious injustice to the contributors to the fund, workers and employers. He is prepared to put in peril the future benefits of unemployed workers, and really to push into the future the real cost of this economy, and to put it on the backs of people who are least able to bear the burden.

Sir J. SIMON: I listened carefully to what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, who, if may he allowed to say so, always does his very best to give the Committee or the House the information at the disposal of his department, and he is always courteous to us all in trying to answer the questions which we ask. But I am bound to say the speech he made did not seem to me to deal with what is the substantial situation to be considered in reference to this Clause. It does not depend, I should have thought, on these very elaborate mathematical calculations which led to the conclusion that, it may be, the live register will carry the figure which has been mentioned. Surely the practical side of the matter, the side which the Committee have really to consider, is something quite different. The practical side of the matter, I thought, was this, and I hope I may be corrected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by someone in authority, if I am wrong. It is only some nine months ago that there was an Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill and the situation which was at that time established was that there was an extra penny put upon the contribution which was due from the employer week by week as compared with a contribution from the man of 8d.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The employers contribution was one penny per head leaving the disparity.

Sir J. SIMON: Owing to the fact that there had been a sealing down, you still cad the disparity by which the employer was to contribute a penny more than the man. Everybody knows that the real ultimate economic effect is not to be limited to the particular party that provides the money. If you make the employer contribute more than he otherwise would be expected to contribute, that works itself out as the result of an economic adjustment with a corresponding effect upon the burdens which industry has to hear and the conditions upon which workmen have to he employed. Every great contract into which a contractor may be disposed to enter will be affected by the very substantial sums which will have to be found by employers under unemployment insurance. Therefore this is e matter which affects the whole trading of the nation. My memory goes back to the original Act, and I have always understood that unemployment insurance is built up on the basis that the contribution from the worker and the employer should be equal in amount. It was so to begin with although a lot of changes have been made but that has always been the basis of the scheme. Nothing is more clear than that, and when it was thought necessary to keep the employers contribution above the contribution of the men, that was held to be purely temporary.
On the Second Reading of the Economy Bill I happened to turn op and quoted to the House a declaration made by the Minister of Labour himself on this subject which showed what the Minister at the time said when the Act of 1925 was carried and 2d. was taken off the men's contribution and 2d. off the employers' contribution, the employer being left to pay ld. more. On that occasion the Minister of Labour said:
The principle of equality has been accepted. It is in harmony with the principle of the Bill and really in harmony with the principle laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that both sides should he treated on a parity and should be equal. Therefore, I think the arrangement laid down in the Bill should be allowed to stand.
The position was that the employer for the moment had to pay an extra penny, and how is that going to be corrected? It was that if the Unemployment Fund
rose to a more solvent position, if its liability to the State was reduced, if trade improved, the very first use that would he made of that improvement, as soon as it was available, would be to knock that extra penny off the employers' contribution. That undoubtedly was the representation made to the House by this very Government by the Chancellor's colleague, only nine months ago, and it was on that basis that that. Act was passed. At a time when I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not anticipated hat this coming Budget was going to be quite such a tight fit, at a time when it was not supposed you would have to raid a fund of this sort for budgeting purposes, it was the intention of everyone, as of this Government, that as soon as ever circumstances so improved as to make it possible to make some change, advantage should be taken of the improvement to take this extra penny off the employers' contribution.
What is it that this Bill is doing? It is performing, as it seems to me, a juggle with figures which may be very satisfactory to the Chancellor of the Exchequer preparing for his Budget, but which does not really give any relief to the country. We are told there is good ground for hoping the size of the live register will continue to decline. It is big enough in all conscience, but better than it used to be. Everyone hopes it may turn out to be true. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is no doubt taking part in very grave and anxious discussions now in connection with the one great industrial anxiety that is over-riding the country, feels none the less that he can recommend the Committee to proceed on the basis that the live register is going to be this rather smaller number, good luck to him, but that is not any reason why the advantage that thus arises should be appropriated to the purposes of the Budget. It really appears to tile to be mere sham to pretend that by a Clause in this Economy Bill you are effecting some economy by doing that. The real situation is, if one accept the promises, that there has been such an improvement, such an advance towards better trade, as enables the Unemployment Insurance Fund to stand at a rather better level than it previously did. Then what are you going to do in view of that circumstance? You
can make one use of it or another. The use intended to be made of it nine months ago was to take off the extra penny from the employers' contribution. That is not merely in the interest of the employers or the contractors, but of the trade of the country. It is a relief pro tanto from one of the burdens that presses down the springs of industry. To say "I will not do that. I will leave that burden on industry and then I will in a Clause of the Economy Bill transfer to the Treasury the relief that thus arises"—is that, in fact, to give anything at all? It is merely to put this advantage at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose, of his Budget calculations on the terms that you are leaving a burden on industry longer than you need otherwise leave it. If the Chancellor is prepared to tell us frankly—he can be very frank when he pleases; we are most fortunate to have him here—if he is prepared to say, "That is true, it is as broad as it is long; either industry is going to get this relief or else the Budget is going to get it, and I must have it for my Budget, and industry must put up with it," we know where we are.
It seems to me to be little better than a sham to pretend that this Clause of the Economy Bill is really affecting any economy. There is no economy in leaving industry under a burden of which it will not now be relieved merely in order that you may have an exactly corresponding sum, which is a very substantial one, I think, made available for the purpose of his Budget calculations. I do not know whether I have made my own view clear to the Committee. I know I have not expressed it in very polished or prepared language bat I have in my own mind quite a clear view of what I mean. If I have made my meaning clear to the Committee I venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that is not the position.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Undoubtedly the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in indicating that the employers have some grievance in this matter. I said so quite openly when I moved the Second Beading of this Measure to the House. I said they would have the additional penny that rests on them over and above the rate of contribution of the workers reduced at the earliest opportunity and in so far as what
we are doing now may considerably prolong the deficiency period to that extent they are delayed in receiving that relief of the penny which we contemplated nine months ago would be their lot. But we have certainly not handled this question of the unemployed insurance fund in any ungenerous, narrow or grasping spirit. The hon. Gentleman who made us a very long but in many ways a very excellent speech was constantly endeavouring to prove his point throughout the whole of that speech. The hon. Member for West Nottingham, (Mr. Hayday), told us of the great burden upon the contributor. The rates are very high. The State only bears a small proportion of the general charge of unemployment. The great bulk of the burden is borne by the workers and by their employers. For this reason I always avoid the use of the expression "dole," which does not accurately apply to a fund where the great bulk of the contributions is borne by the bodies interested. It is only nine mouths ago that we reduced the contribution by 2d. from the employer and by 2d. from the worker. These are very large and sensible reductions. We did so, it is quite true, at a time when we were imposing other contributions for other benefits, which are in themselves far greater than the additional contributions. But we have effected a reduction in contributions only nine months ago, and we had reason to believe that the fund would be solvent on the basis of these reductions provided the State paid a considerable sum us its share to the fund. But, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we were at that time proceeding upon the basis of an average unemployment live register of 1,300,000. I thought myself, at that time, that that was a somewhat pessimistic calculation, and have since made a most complete and careful examination into the whole history, month by month, of the unemployment figures during the last four years. As the result of that calculation we found, on purely actuarial grounds—apart, that is to say, from any unexpected improvement or development ill the trade of he country—that we were entitled to look forward to a live register of something in the neighbourhood of 1,050,000.
Was there any reason, at this difficult time, if that were so, for our burdening
the National Exchequer with a heavy charge that was not needed to maintain the solvency of the Fund? After all, the Fund is a very strong one. Its income amounts to about £50,000,000 a year. Its statutory borrowing powers, specifically designed by Parliament to meet exactly the time of difficulty through which we are now passing, entitle it to borrow no less than £30,000,000, if necessary. It has in the past borrowed upwards of £17,000,000, and it has reduced that indebtedness, with the normal working of the Fund, from £17,000,000 to £7,000,000; and, during the course of this difficult year through which we have passed the deficiency has only been raised by £2,000,000. Therefore, I say that the solvency of the Fund is undoubted.
Behind the Fund stands the State. We are, undoubtedly, intimately connected with the Fund. We provide the money, and are paying the interest upon the loan. When money has been lent to it, it has been the money of the taxpayers generally. Here is a fund, with its borrowing power amply sufficient at this moment to meet its needs and its difficulties. It is no part of our intention to allow the Fund to proceed to develop in deficiency on a larger scale, and get back to £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 of deficiency. Our calculation is that the Fund will continue solvent on the present basis if we reduce the contribution of the State as is proposed by this Measure, and the only party that has the slightest ground of complaint in the next year—and, after all, I cannot look much further ahead in this matter than next year—will be the employer, who was led to expect that he would get the redaction of ld. at the earliest possible moment, and who is now not going to get it. I say that quite frankly.
12. M
I trust that the Committee, now that he hour is late, and probably no very close attention is being paid by the public Press to our deliberations, will for one moment endeavour to do a little justice to the point of view of His Majesty's Government in this Economy Bill, and in this particular unemployment section of their proposals. The course of economy is, of course, very hard; everyone knows it is very unpopular; it gives plenty of opportunity for attacks of every kind; it will probably cost votes in many con-
stituencies, and embarrass many Members in their relations with their constituents. Everyone knows that that is undoubtedly the fact, and no one can complain that an Opposition, or two Oppositions, with all their duties of bringing to bear criticism upon the Government, should take the fullest possible advantage of the duty which the Government have to do of an unpopular and difficult character. I, for my part, although I have not obtruded myself on the Debate—not from any wish, I can assure the Committee, to shirk the issue, but with the desire not unduly to complicate the deliberations of the House—I, for my part., can sincerely say that we have been animated in these proposals only by a sense of duty and the general interest of the country. For every one of these proposals which has been put forward, four or five have been examined and rejected. When we see the kind of opposition—perfectly sincere opposition—and the severe character of the opposition which can be put forward in regard to our economy proposals: proposals which have been derided as being petty in their scope, as utterly inadequate for the need of the time—

Sir J. SIMON: On a point of Order. it is not our fault that the right hon. Gentleman was not here before. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be at liberty to defend these proposals in general, we shall, surely, be at liberty on this particular question to debate the proposals.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I am not straying from the rules of Order except in a sentence or two. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have been closured for discussing them."] My difficulties with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) began a good many years ago. All I can say on that point is that it shows how very foolish are those who imagine that £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 can be struck from the National Expenditure easily without all the consequences that mould fall upon the social life of the people if those fierce inroads were made. [HON. MEMBERS "What about the Army and Navy !"]
With regard to this part of the Measure the solvency of the Fund, where would the Fund have been if we had had a
strike, a lockout, a stoppage, call it what you will, last Autumn? The State might have continued to pay its fullest contributions and the Insurance Fund could have gone into a £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 deficiency, and up to the full limit of its borrowing powers, but if we had had a recurrence of what occurred in 1920 when there were 2,500,000 unemployed, the provisions of this Insurance Fund would have been washed clean out. That is what we have endeavoured to the best of our ability, and what we are still endeavouring night and day, to save the country from. That is why I have been called upon, as the Minister responsible, to find £19,000,000 this year, and £4,000,000 in the estimates of nest year, in addition to some other sums. This immense sum, which has disturbed the whole range of our financial—[Interruption] I am dealing with the solvency of the Fund. The whole of this great sum has been incurred by the Exchequer with the object of avoiding an industrial disaster which would have ruined this very Fund and would have ruined many other things as well. When we are undertaking these great burdens, are we not entitled to some consideration and some tolerance in regard to the measures which are required in order to finance them and in order to sustain the burden? It is said that I have taken £4,000,000 from the Unemployment Fund, but we have put down nearly £24,000,000 in order co sustain one great industry throughout the past winter and to save it from catastrophy.
I say that this ought not have been a cause of sneers and jeers and taunts and charges of robbery, when these Measures have been put forward with the sincere object of averting a great difficulty and a great national disaster. It may well be that every party point should be taken, and I will never stand here and say that politicians never should make party points, but now at this hour I appeal to the Committee to drop all this talk about a narrow, sordid, grasping Treasury, about robbery and raiding this Fund and raiding that Fund when it is perfectly well known that the financial problem we have to face is one that arises out of the necessity of averting a catastrophe to the masses of the people—to the employers as well as to workers—a catastrophe
which would be ruinous to them and ruinous to this Fund.
I trust that the Committee will allow us to make such provision for the Unemployment Insurance Fund this year as we believe will be adequate to sustain it throughout the year, and to prevent the Fund going further into deficiency. We believe there are reasons to justify the expectation that employment will improve. Of course, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, we may have a great struggle, a great lock-out, a great stoppage, whatever it may be; hut I am not considering that at all. None of the proposals we are putting before Parliament, none of the proposals in the Bill will have the slightest reference to that. Altogether different proposals will be required, an altogether different scheme of finance will be required if such a contingency arises: but on the assumption that this danger does not arise, we have every reason to believe that a live register of 1,050,000 will carry us through the year, and that the Fund will be as solvent throughout the year as it is now, and the only people to suffer will be the employers whose expectations of a penny being taken off their contribution kill not be realised. I hope, therefore, that in this debate the difficulties not only of the Government but of the country as a whole will be considered at the same time as every fair debating point is taken against the Government.

Mr. THOMAS: I certainly do not object, and I hope none of my hon. Friends behind me will object to the wide view which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it necessary to take in order to defend his proposals. I welcome it, because I propose to follow in detail his general wide survey not only of the industrial field, not only of the late trouble, but of the situation at the moment, keeping in mind, of course, its implications and the consequences it is likely to have, upon the Clause we are discussing. But I think I should express to the Chancellor of the Exchequer our congratulations on his reappearance in these Debates, because we have missed him considerably. I say to him quite frankly that I like him to meet us in the spirit in which he has met us. No one is such a past master in the role of opposition as he has been,
and he knows perfectly well, although it has escaped the notice of some of his colleagues, that everything we have done in this matter has been strictly in accordance with the principles he has laid down. We know he is an audacious statesman and that there is no one who takes such risks, but is there anything to equal the audacity he has shown to-night? If I were going to the scaffold to-morrow morning I know of nothing which would be better than to send for the Chancellor of the Exchequer about five minutes to eight, for he would persuade me I was going there for the benefit of my health. Here he is responsible for what we have said, and repeat, is nothing but robbery and confiscation; here he is responsible for having said twelve months ago when introducing his Budget that as far as he was concerned, he looked for a reduction of £10,000,000 per annum in general expenditure, and then he brings forward the Economy Bill and he calls it a reduction in expenditure—that is to say, taking sums which do not belong to him and which were not subscribed for that purpose. That is his construction of national economy, but let us examine it a little further.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer say "The reason we can do this is a two-fold one—firstly, because in our judgment there is such an improvement in trade that the actuarial calculation which go to make this fund self-supporting is such as tends, in our judgment, to a substantial reduction." That is the first point. He gave a figure and I asked him if he would follow it up by giving what figures were at his disposal as to the number of people turned off the live register by the restrictions, because it must not be lost sight of, that our complaint about the unemployment figures is not that we do not welcome a reduction of even one—we do —but what we object to are figures which tend to show there is an improvement in the unemployment situation, whereas, as a matter of fact, these restrictions and new methods simply turn people off one fund and throw them on to the boards of guardians. I think there is only one way of testing the accuracy or otherwise of these figures and that is to see what is the tendency so far as the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief is concerned, as compared with the previous
corresponding period. That is the fairest method.
Here let me say we on this side appreciate the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not associate himself with the foolish people who are always calling this unemployment insurance the "dole," because that is not only wicked and mischievous, but the impression that is created abroad is that a great mass of our people are living on charity, and that is an absurd and a fantastic idea and contrary to the facts. Therefore I welcome the statement of the Chancellor in reference to this point.
I now turn to the figures as revealed in the Ministry of Health statement showing the number of persons in receipt of poor law in England and Wales in the quarter ending in December, 1925. I find that the number of persons receiving domiciliary relief on 26th December, 1925 was 246,710 more than in December 1924. It is probably true that the number includes, indeed it must include the very nature of things, a much larger number of people than would be insured persons. I frankly admit that, but after making all allowance for that fact there is this abnormal increase of a quarter of a million persons in receipt of poor law relief in one year.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask one question. Does the figure the right hon. Gentleman has quoted consist solely of insured persons or does, it include all the insured persons and their dependents. And is it not the fact that the bulk of the people in receipt of outdoor relief are also included in the life register though not in receipt of benefit?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first point, I thought I made it clear that it must include a larger number of people than would be insured persons. It is difficult for anyone to make any calculation as to how many it did include. I contented myself with drawing attention to the abnormal increase. The experience of hon. Members must assist them in any calculation as to how many more insured persons. I have received from my own constituency, from the Board of Guardians, a body consisting of Liberals, Conservatives, and Labour, details of cases in which they say the applicants have been forced to apply because they have been turned off the unemployment register. The difficulty I experience is
this. I wish I could be as optimistic as the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the unemployment situation. I refrain from making any comment on the present industrial situation because I think the greatest contribution we can make to a peaceful settlement is to say nothing that is likely to aggravate the position. As far as I am concerned, I leave the question there and I do not intend to make any point whatever about it. But I come back to this point. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify his attitude on the basis of economy? He says in substance that if there is any injustice it is an injustice to the employer. By implication that means that the employé is not affected. If there is any truth—and I believe there is—in the statement that heavy taxation, whether local or national, is reflected in the employment figures and in industry generally, you cannot use that argument when dealing with general taxation and then contend that the worker is not affected by this penny, because it happens to be a tax on the employer. That would be an absurd argument. We believe that there is no method so mean as the method adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Bill. I congratulate him on "getting away with it." I did not believe it was possible, knowing some of his colleagues as I do. They are not very lively at the moment, but knowing what they are usually like about 2.45 o'clock in the afternoon, I would not have believed it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have got over them as he has done. They are obviously uncomfortable. They have no spirit in this tremendous fight, and yet they have done their best and have done it very well. The way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has persuaded them that this is an Economy Bill is amazing.
We do not believe this is an Economy Bill. If it is, why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt this attitude in regard to the nation's welfare a few months ago? Why did he not emphasise the need for saving every copper and for looking here and there for economies on a previous occasion which I shall recall? He has pointed out that the English, Scottish and Welsh unemployed if it is necessary to borrow money from the Treasury, not only pay interest on it, but
pay towards reducing the debt. He knows that when he went to the Treasury he found there a letter which said to Northern Ireland, "You have no more claim and you are to have no more money." He saw it and I saw it. It was not a letter from a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, but a letter from a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, saying in effect, "This is the last penny you will get." Yet the right hon. Gentleman who is now talking about economy and saving money and telling us that we must take broad views, when his friends from Northern Ireland came along, said to them, "There is no question of interest; I will give you £5,000,000." He did it, and after he had done it he knew he would have difficulty in connection with the coming Budget. He gave them the £5,000,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, £5,000,000 for five years. To be quite accurate, it was £4,800,000. The total sum involved here is £10,000,000 a year and we are discussing on this particular item a matter of £3,500,000. The real fact is that under the guise of an Economy Bill we are discussing a part of the Budget. Next Monday week we are supposed to hear the Budget statement, but we have the first indication of it here, and we know what happened nine months ago. I ask the Committee to observe that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about saving £10,000,000, it was before any question arose about the £19,000,000. There was no question then about a subsidy. Therefore, because this is not economy, because it is a breach of faith, because it violates a Clause of an existing Act, even at this late hour we feel compelled to continue to offer our strongest opposition to the Bill.

Mr. REMER: I have on a previous occasion expressed my views about this part of the Bill and the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening has not altered those views in any way. He has told us that the only people affected by this proposal are the employers. It is mainly on the grounds that the employers are the people who are keeping together the industry of the country at the present time and that they are people on whom this Unemployment Insurance Fund is a serious charge causing
great embarrassment to them in the standing charges of their business that I make my last appeal. I ask the Government to consider that this is really not an economy and that it merely transfers a burden from the income taxpayer to the contributor to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is postponing the solvency of the fund in order to deny as long as possible the penny reduction to which employers and employed are entitled. For myself, contrary to the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) I have optimism. I think the right hon. Gentleman's views in that respect are largely erroneous, and that if we only face the situation like men, and reduce taxation in a bold spirit, we can also reduce unemployment. I believe we shall reduce it more effectively by that means than by any other. I did not support hon. Members opposite in their views on the National Health Insurance part of the Bill. I have not supported what might be called the popular side of their appeal. I would support the Government on a great many unpopular things which they might put forward and I am rather surprised they have not put forward more proposals on the basis of reducing the taxation of the country, because that is the only way to deal with the unemployment situation. But I cannot support this particular proposal, which is not to the advantage either of the employing class or the employed class of this country but is of great disadvantage to both.

Major CRAWFURD: The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, to we at any rate on this side of the House, is very refreshing. Rare and refreshing to hear a really candid expression of opinion from an hon. Member on the other side of the House is always refreshing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the House this afternoon for the first time during the course of this Debate and gives us a lecture on patriotism. He lashed himself into a fury because we had passed certain criticism on his proposals. He had not taken the trouble to listen to hours of the Debate and yet he used expressions to the effect that we were not sincere on this particular vote. He tells us that we are entitled to make what he calls party points—legitimate party points
—but now that the country is facing great dangers and troubles he begs us not to talk in the way we have been talking about hen roosts and robbery. We use these terms because we believe them. I recall the Statements the right hon. Gentleman used himself last year, during the course of his Budget proposals. I think he was referring to the Silk tax. The old argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was about luxury tax and we on this side protested against the fallacy of the doctrines of the so called luxury taxation. I remember the right hon. Gentleman said he would not only tax Silk. Last year he employed some months in looking for new luxuries to tax. He found during the course of those months the National Health Insurance, and the Unemployment Fund. But the right hon. Gentleman offered no defence on this particular Clause. His defence, so far as he made any on this particular Clause was in recording his optimism as to future prospects of employment. The improvement such as it is has been largely due to the subsidies to the coal trade. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to compare the figures of unemployment with the figures of those employed, and see the increase in the number of people unemployed and uninsured who are getting out door relief he will see how far his optimism is justified. The right hon. Gentleman made a very good speech at St. Pancras dealing with the proposals of the Government to help Industry. He pointed out that he was going to endeavour to relieve those who were paying contributions.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was then referring to the two twopences.

Major CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman was also holding out a hope that when the period of deficiency passed away he would be able to still further reduce the burden on the employed. The right hon. Gentleman was also talking about the Pensions Scheme. He was speaking at the annual dinner of the British Bankers' Association on 13th May, 1925. I will quote what he then said:
But when the so-called deficiency period passes away, when, that is to say, unemployment falls into the neighbourhood of 800,000 and 850,000—as it will do in a reasonable, a certain period—and when the
fund in consequence becomes solvent, then by law the contributions of the employers and of the workmen over this great area fall to a common 6d., that is, a reduction of 4d. by the employer and 3d. by the workpeople. The key to the situation is the termination of the deficiency period.
The right hon. Gentleman calls this an Economy Bill. It makes no economy at all. There is not a shred of economy in the proposals of this Clause. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman has been challenged on this point and he has not given us a reply. He has given us a Second Reading speech, but he has not dealt with this Clause at all.

Mr. PALING: In criticising the Tory party—he was a Liberal at that time—the right hon. Gentleman said something about patriotism by the Imperial pint and sentiment by the bucketful. We have now had rhetoric by the ream and irrelevancies by the yard. He has been trying to cloud the issue. The most of what he said had nothing to do with the subject. He has done all he can to obscure the point. In spite of the passion in which he lands himself he is trying economy at the expense of the working classes. I am glad that the Minister of Health and his Under-Secretary attempted during these discussions to persuade us that the fact that they were robbing the insured contributor of £2,800,000 was really for the good of the contributor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was candid enough to admit that so far as the employers are concerned they are going to suffer to the extent of the penny they were going to have.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Postponed.

Mr. PALING: I think that is to a certain extent a credit to him. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit when he is driven to such shifts to get economies such as are expressed in this Bill in face of the facts explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas)—about giving £5,000,000 to Northern Ireland and £10,000,000 to super-tax payers last year and £20,000,000 to Income Tax payers—that he is rather driven to mean shifts when he has to confiscate £3,500,000 from the Unemployment Fund. What are the things that have made it possible even to get this money from the Unemployment Fund. Who are the people who are paying part of the price of this £3,500,000 that is
being diverted to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry his Budget and carry out the promises he made so gaily last year to save £10,000,000 expenditure? I have here a memorandum from the Ministry of Labour, and if one goes through the columns of figures on page five, one gets a fairly clear idea of the sacrifice that is being made by tens of thousands of people in this country in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his Budget. For the month ending 28th January, 1924, I see that the total disallowances during that month were 48,000; on 25th January, 1926, the total of disallowances was 83,350. A remarkable difference that ! These are some of the people who have to suffer and pay the price of economy under the Bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought in.
I think it is extremely mean and despicable that economy should be practised at the expense of a class of people who lose all by having economy practised upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the super man, is driven to mean expedients of this description in order to find money which he can give away to his friends. There is a saying that the Tory party always gives to its friends. In future years no one will be able to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever ran away from that dictum. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has almost destroyed his reputation as a superman when he is driven to such mean, petty shifts as to save £3,500,000 at the expense of the most distressed people in this country.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer in still maintaining his reputation as a natural marauder. It is the old spirit still maintaining itself. It is almost a family tradition. What I complain about is that the Government have never made up their minds about the question of unemployment at all. They have never made up their minds as to whether unemployment in its present form is becoming static or is a passing phase. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to get the country to believe that unemployment is of a passing character. It is not so many weeks ago since he delivered some very optimistic speeches on this question. Arid shortly after he
was contradicted by people far more competent to know about the state of trade. The leaders of commerce made a solemn declaration that they could see no hope whatever of any real change so far as unemployment is concerned. It is just about time we got to know what is the Government's real view with regard to the position of unemployment in general. I am going to say this that even looking at the financial position, I deny that we are in such a desperate state as to render it necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the funds he has gone to for the purpose of relieving the Exchequer. He made certain very widespread and tremendous reductions, so far as taxation is concerned twelve months ago. He was warned, but he went on, and in spite of the reductions he made, I am going to say that his budget after all did not present such very bad calculations. Where he had gene wrong, of course, is that he did not foresee that he would have to pay a subsidy to the coal trade Otherwise his budget would have balanced well on the right side. I think probably about £5,0000,000 on the right side. [HON. MEMBERS "No !"]. Well I am giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for that. I want to make the point that we are not in the desperate position that it is necessary to raid this fund; that there is a source that can be tapped, so far as available wealth is concerned, for revenue purposes.
With regard to the reduction the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the Super tax I shall be very interested to see the ultimate figures. I believe in spite of all the gloom and in spite of the unemployment from one source or another there is a small section in this country able to pay. I do not believe that the wealthy people of this country are getting poorer. The people who are getting poorer are the poor. The people who are getting poorer are the working people and the policy of the Chancellor is to make their condition worse. My hon. Friend has just read one or two figures from this paper that has been published bid- he did not read the worst. He gave the figures for January 1924 to show that the total disallowances from the register were about 48,000. But come down to 28th September, 1925 and the total disallowances jump up at once to 110,000 and these figures do not appear to be as
optimistic with regard to the reduction so far as the unemployment fund is concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may argue as best he may but it comes back to this in the end that these funds affecting the working-class people are being used in the way they are in order to relieve the taxation of the super-rich not of the comfortable people. It is because of these reasons that we shall continue our opposition to this base kind of economy which is being practiced by the Chancellor in this Bill. I can only wish that there should be a fairly rapid cycle of bye-elections in order that the Government might realise the extent of the economy of the proposals they are making. I would not stop the Government in their mad career for a single moment. The sooner they go to their doom the better for the country and the more the Chancellor continues the way he is going the better. I am not going to raise any protest for it suits me very well. It is all part of the game that is being played. It is all part of the tremendous class trouble going on. I am not surprised that the Chancellor is what he is. He does what I expect him to do. He has been sent here to maintain his class. It is traditional and whether he likes it or not that is the point of view that those on these benches will continue to take and maintain and it is because of that that we shall continue to oppose to the best of our ability the proposals he is making in this Economy Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I venture to intervent. We have had very full argument on this amendment lasting 3 hours which is a reasonable time and every shade of opinion has been frankly expressed. The fact that the Debate on this Bill is being carried on at a late hour On the second night shows the earnestness with which the Bill is being considered by the House but we have a very long way to go before we see our breakfast table and I venture to suggest that we may be able to have a decision on this particular question after 3 hours debate by normal methods without the closure and then go on with the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that would enable us to make some progress.

Mr. THOMAS: This is a new departure which we, on this side of the Committee, want to welcome. Here we find the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer coming in and doing what, if it had been done last night, would have avoided all the difficulties. I want to respond to him in the same spirit as that which he has indicated, and I want to suggest to him that we ought to stop now. Let its face the facts. He did not get the gruelling we got last night. As he has said, we are sent here to do our duty, and we have to do it. I think it can be done much more efficiently if the Government recognise that this was a matter which must take a tremendous lot of time. Would it not be better to start fresh on this matter? Supposing we agree to dispose of this Amendment and then adjourn, we can come on Monday fresh and energetic and almost as virile as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. See what an advantage it will be to you. You want us to approach this Economy Bill in the spirit you have indicated, and I think we can get a better grasp of it when we are fresh.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman put himself in Order, and moved to report Progress.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I wanted to find out how far the Government wanted to go, and in moving to report Progress I would respectfully point out that we have had a very lean time. We are all tired because we have had to hear the brunt of the debate. I am tired, and I feel it would be better if we were to adjourn at this stage. And I move to report Progress in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of making a statement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, has not deluded himself for one moment that there will be any response to the appeal he has made. I hoped we would come to a conclusion on the question we have been discussing for the last three hours, but as the right hon. Gentleman has now moved to report progress I venture to take advantage of the motion to say that we are strictly limited in our ambitions to-night. We do not intend to take parts 4, 5 or 6 of this Bill to-night. All we are trying to do is to get the extremely small question
of the register, which really has the effect of saving the Treasury £125,000 per year and will save an equal amount to local authorities every year. Of course, if we have to have some difficulty with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and not know altogether exactly how far they want to go and what they wish to give to this discussion it will make the matter less easy. But if we have, therefore, taken the step of limiting out ambitions to-night it is with the view that we have a very long discussion before us and we might now get on with the next half of the unemployment question.

Mr. THOMAS: When the Chancellor says "We have now limited our ambitions" it shows that he cannot possibly have had any conception of our view on these particular clauses. It is admitted that on this unemployment problem there are not only the aspects we are dealing with at the moment, but a number of others. While I admit the amount saved on this Clause is very limited, the whole question of Parliamentary franchise is involved. In this tired state, knowing the issues involved, is it fair for the Government to pursue this matter? I know they had a very ambitious programme. It was somewhat punctured by events. I do submit they are over-ambitious to put it no higher.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I think the Chancellor under-estimates the importance of Clause 9. If he still remained in a Scottish constituency and relied on the votes of serious politically-minded electors such as mine he would realise the fundamental importance of Clause 9. A large number of people are feeling strongly about these proposals, which cut at the root of the compromise achieved in the Speaker's conference of 1918.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Surely the Chancellor forgets we are dealing with people who will have to wait much longer for their breakfasts than we do unless we make some effective protest. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if this money is taken away a far greater number will be removed as a result of the indirect pressure that comes from his department through the regulations of the Ministry of Labour from the live register. We feel that this issue is one of much greater importance than can be
dealt with even in a debate of three hours. There is no subject of greater importance to the House of Commons than this subject of unemployment. As a matter of fact if the whole day's session were set aside for this purpose no other subject whatever being taken it would not be too much. I would remind the whole party opposite and in particular i he Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no matter on which more promises have been made by the party opposite than this question of unemployment. It is altogether too bad that after having given far more hours than three to the question of Health Insurance, important as that subject is, the right hon. Gentleman should be appealing to us in the interests of getting to our breakfasts at a particularly early hour to finish the debate in 3 hours. Speaking for my constituency and for hon. Members on this side I say we expect considerably greater time for the consideration of this matter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion, we can get back to, the discussion.

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly I withdraw it, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'expiration' in line 24, stand part of the Clause."

Mr. CONNOLLY: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to men who have been disallowed and ceased to register. He said we would find these numbers in the White Paper issued about three weeks ago. Surely if this figure of 11,000 is correct then the Minister's remarks require amplifying because if you take the figures given in the White Paper in the month of August under the 1925 Act you find for the 6 months that are there recorded, there are 151,000 men who have been disabled and who have ceased to register, and if 11,000 is anywhere near correct, it means that 95 per cent, of the men who are going before the rota committees month after month must be the same. But I think the figures convey something very different to that. Those of us who are occupying part of our time in administering local affairs know of the enormous increase in the rate of the poor law funds. In the city that I have the honour partly to represent here, there is
nearly half of the figure that has been given by the Minister in an increase in the poor rates. These figures when quite superficially analysed give quite remarkable results. The increase of those on Poor Law relief is in round figures 170,000 and for the six months here recorded we get 151,000. My main purpose in rising was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, but I see he has gone away so I must ask it in his absence. He went at great length to assure us that as far as the deficiency period was concerned, it was to be safeguarded under the Economy Bill. If that is so, what is the meaning of sub-section 2 of Clause 8? It says
paragraph (c) of Sub-Section (1) of the said section four—
That is, the Act of 1925—
(except in so far as it relates to the meaning of the expression 'the 1925 debt') is hereby repealed.
What is the Section of the Act that is about to be repealed? It is the part of the Act that carries forward from the previous Acts the provisions with regard to the deficiency period. It means that there is to he no provision whatever for the deficiency period—none whatever. These two paragraphs of the 1925 Act (c) and (d) are complementary. Paragraph (d) deals with the point that was enlarged upon the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) the question of when a rebate or diminution of one penny in the employer's contribution should take place. It is complementary with paragraph (c) which deals with the increased deficiency. Therefore, it would be understandable if there had boon, in the light of what the Chancellor has said with regard to reducing the contributions of the employer by one penny is not now possible, if the proposal under the Economy Bill was to delete paragraph (d) of the Bill. But instead of that paragraph (d) is left in, and paragraph (c) which is a safeguard, is proposed to be repealed.
We are convinced that this is a prelude to a diminution of benefits. Nothing else can be in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is anything else in his mind, it is quite unintelligible to us. The balance is going to be destroyed if the subsection of the 1925 Act is going to be repealed. I am going to remind this House once again of what the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) spoke of to-night, and of which
I reminded the House last year—the difference between our attitude in this House now to the unemployed man and our attitude in 1918. I was sent for with other eight men to come to London in October, 1918, just previously to the cessation of hostilities. We were to meet representatives of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, Ministry of Labour, and other Government Departments, and proposals were laid before us for increasing unemployment benefits. We were told that hostilities were about to cease and that the men were coming home up to 5,000,000 of them. The cost of living had increased, and more adequate provision, it was pointed out, would have to be made for them. We did not ask for it and the trade unions had not petitioned for it because they did not know that the war was coming to an end. Yet these proposals were put spontaneously before us because the Government knew that unless something of the kind were done there might be serious trouble with all these men coming home from the war. The attitude to-night is different to what it was then. That sort of thing can he pushed too far, and this Economy Bib is likely to do it. We are going to economise on that class that has been spoken of again and again as the most deserving class, and the class that has been hardest hit by acts of policy laid down here.

Mr. BETTERTON: I think the lion. Member is under a complete misconception with regard to paragraph (c) of the 1925 Act. It refers entirely to the contingent penny about which I spoke. Paragraph (d) refers to the penny that, in certain circumstances, may come off the employer's contribution. Paragraph (c) refers to the contingent penny payable under this Act by the Exchequer if the deficiency in any one quarter exceeds the amount of the debt at 31st December, 1925. I think the hon. Member is under a real misapprehension.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Paragraph (c) is as follows, if I may read it:
If at the end of the first quarter of the year 1926 or at the end of any subsequent quarter of any year the minister, with the concurrence of the Treasury declares that the average of the amounts of the advances made by the Treasury to the employment fund (in this section referred to as "Advances") outstanding on the last day of each week in the quarter together with
the interest accrued up to the said last day in respect of advances exceeds the amount of the advances outstanding on the 31st day of December, 1925, together with interest accrued up to the said 31st day in respect of advances (which last mentioned amounts together with the accrued interest is hereinafter referred to as 'the 1925 debt"), the rates of the contributions payable out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be deemed to have been increased in respect of that quarter, in the case of an employed person being a man by one penny, and in any other case by one half-penny.
What do I take from that, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong? I take from that that if the advances at any time from the 1st April this year are less than the advances required at the end of December last year, then this Clause becomes operative.

Mr. BETTERTON: What this Section means is this. It means that if, in any quarter, the amount of outstanding advances is greater than it was on the 31st December lost, then there is another penny payable.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Exactly. But this Bill proposes to repeal that. That is my contention. The whole thing is so involved it is very difficult to follow. We have not all had a University education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now here. I take a great interest in the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he was born the day after or the day before me. I have watched his career long before he took to Parliament. I happened to be in a colony at the time he was there. I am going to make a personal appeal to him, because I have always said that he has got his reputation by doing large things, and to-night he is doing one of the smallest things that a man can descend to. I am sorry to have to say it. This was a pettifogging Economy Bill, which meant accretions of slightly over 3¾ millions to balance a Budget of 800 millions. What is the position in the country to-day. We have the Inland Revenue figures showing that the assessable fortunes for income tax and super tax in 1913—the year before the War—was in excess by £4,180,000,000.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Member from where he gets these figures?

Mr. CONNOLLY: These are Inland Revenue figures. The actual figures are £11,000,000,000 in 1913. The last figures given are £15,180,000,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What year do they represent?

Mr. CONNOLL: Last year. What I want to say is that the Government's proposal is a mean thing with all this a cretion of wealth much of which was got out of the misery we went through during those four years. We are trying to save a few millions from unemployed men and dependants. The last thing I want to say is that if the deprivation of medical benefits in Clause 2 of the Bill has caused a storm of comment up and down the country, this proposal in Clause 8 will cause a greater. This deprivation will be immediately felt and will drive more on to the local rates. It is going to be no relief to Industry. To call it an Economy Bill is a farce.

Mr. WHITELEY: I paid great attention to the speech of the Chancellor of the, Exchequer and to the Parliamentary Secretary, in order to find real justification for this Clause in the Economy Bill. But I have heard nothing that was any real justification for taking a step of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the employers may have some grievance. I want to suggest that while the employers may have some grievance the insured persons have even a greater grievance. He also pointed out to us that there was some justification on the part of the Government because they have reduced contributions by 2d., and transferred it to another fund with additional contributions for which some extra benefits are given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have great difficulty in convincing a body of workmen that there has been some reduction in the contribution when it is 2d., more than it was before the Widows' Pensions Act. I want to draw his attention to this fact. While his appeal to us may be on very high grounds, that the Government of the country has to face great difficulties and at this early hour in the morning we ought to withdraw our petty gibes and recognise the national responsibility and allow the Bill to pass in order that he and his colleagues may get en with their particular work, is all very fine; but if he represented my division he would not be able to go on to the public platform and make such a wonderful appeal as he would be brought face to face with the actual
situation of men's lives. Therefore I want him to look at this thing, not from the point of view of the people of this country who are extraordinarily well off and comfortable, but from the point of view of the men, women and children who are the real backbone of the country, the men who are the producers of the wealth of the country. I suggest that he should look at it from the point of seeing that this Fund is governed on business lines. It is a fund created by the contributions of three sections of the community—industry, workers and the Government—and any saving should be devoted to the removal of the deficiency. Then the benefits ought to be increased or the contributions reduced.
Under this Clause, if it goes through, you are going to put into operation through the Minister of Labour, more stringent regulations that you are imposing at the present time. Your young men now have no call upon the unemployment fund to which they have paid contributions as insured persons. They are always told that if the head of the house is in employment, or if two workers in the house are in employment, no young man in that house should receive anything from the fund to which he has contributed, but his parents should keep him. It is now coming to such a pass that old men from 60 onwards are being told, when they go before their rota Committees, that they are not likely again to get any insurable employment and that they cannot expect any more benefit from the fund. I know a number of cases where they have altered their decisions. Some of the Committees say that the men have not been making efforts to secure work. They also say that they do not think that they can expect in their search for work to find any more insurable employment. Along these lines we can see the danger of this clause of the Bill. We can see that regulations in the future are going to be so stringent that our people are going to have less benefit; we are going to get our people down to what the Tory Government regards as the workers basic standard of life—a ten shillings basis. We say that the workers have a right to insist on more from the country to which they belong than the Tory Government are prepared to give them and we say you have other resources from which you can secure assistance to help you over your difficulties.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I renew my appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this matter.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to express my feeling, having followed the main part of the discussion this morning and yesterday as well, that there is undoubtedly a very marked contrast between the two situations—one in defence of the Measure—and even with regard to this particular Clause under discussion now—and that presented by the Opposition. I do not think there is a single man on the other side but in his own heart knows that there is something not creditable for a powerful party like the Government party and represented in this connection by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in having to make a very animated appeal this morning to get us to cease making statements such as have been frequently made by not only members of the Labour party but by members of the right hon. Gentleman's former party, the Liberal party, to show that the Government with all its power of making demands upon financial resources of the country to meet any emergency at the present time—it cannot fail to stand out in the mind of any thinking man that, however much you dislike the words "robbery" and relentless invasion of the Health Unemployment Fund there are a million and a quarter of people actually out of employment. It means as many as the whole of the population of Scotland put together. The Chancellor, in his outburst of seeming indignation against such strong language, has altogether overlooked the fact of his own strong predilection for denunciatory and vituperative language. Indeed he is particularly well known for his heavy word painting.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He would not deny that.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No, he would rather take credit for it. Here are the figures, as they now concern the Parish Council of that constituency with which the right hon. Gentleman was so long identified. At this time last year the Dundee Parish Council was paying £109 19s. per week, and, as a result of the Government's action, the weekly bill is at the moment:£425 7s. The numbers have risen from 167 adults, with 286 dependents, to 699 adults with 1,136 dependents. Instead of having a Govern-
ment to face a great emergency as they will eventually have to do, local authorities now are endeavouring to meet in some degree, what the Government are relieving themselves of temporarily. The step we are discussing to-night is a step in the wrong direction. I submit it is sowing wild oats of a political nature and at no distant date they will produce dire results.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry that we are being compelled to discuss this important question at this early hour in the morning. It is far too important a matter to have to discuss in the dark hours of the morning. The House has spent several days and two full nights in discussing the question of insurance. But bad as that raid was, in my opinion the Exchequer raid upon the unemployment worker is worse. Therefore I consider that we are justified as an Opposition in resisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in getting this Clause. As a matter of fact, I think we would be justified, feeling so keenly as we do upon this question, in opposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting this Clause, not only tonight but even all day to-morrow, and even on Saturday and Sunday. I am glad the Chancellor is here for so important a discussion. He said that the employers had a grievance. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not think that the unemployed workmen has a far bigger grievance. It seems to me that it is the unemployed worker who is in danger so far as the raid of the Chancellor is concerned. The unemployed workman is being exposed to a great big danger of losing his unemployment benefit by this raid. Why have the Government changed their mind so quickly? Last year we spent a good deal of time dealing with the Unemployed Bill of the Government, and we thought that at last we would not hear tell of an Unemployment Bill being brought before the House for some years to come. Yet although that was only last year, the Government have changed their minds already and want to repeal certain provisions in that Act.
We opposed last year's Bill and spent so much time on it because the Government were robbing the unemployed workers of £6,500,000 per year. Quickly they come along, and on this occasion to take and rob the unemployed workmen not only of £3,700,000, but, I believe,
their intention is to take and rob the unemployed workmen of the full £6,000,000 a year. That is a big and important matter, and certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have hesitated before he came along and made this demand. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said to-night that he wanted money; that he had a large expenditure. We believe that, but whilst it may be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seek: every way to get money, we want to suggest to him that the very last people he ought to take money from are the unemployed workmen. There is an abundance of people in this country well able to pay the money the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs without coming along and saying to the unemployed workmen, "Now I have had a big expenditure. I have spent a lot of money this year, far more than I expected, and because of that big expenditure I want you unemployed workpeople to pay a good slice of that money." That is not fair on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But last year, when we were dealing with the Unemployment Bill, it was definitely settled that the payment of the Government should be 6¾d, per man, and beginning in April of this year, the Government would increase that to ad. Instead of the Government carrying out that arrangement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along now and says, "Instead of paying 8d. or ¾d. we are now paying, we propose to pay 6d." The result of that policy can only be that if the House gives way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and allows him to pay only 6d. per person of the Unemployment Fund, then it will either on the one hand increase the debt or there will have to be a large cutting up of unemployed men for unemployed benefit. The debt on the fund in March this year was £7,646,248. If the Chancellor had dealt with the British fund as he dealt with the Northern Ireland fend and said we are prepared to give you British credit, that would have been all right.
The effect of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do must be to increase the debt, which is not wise, because it is the workman who has to pay. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew the mining trade he would recognise frankly that the workmen there are
already paying far more than they can afford without having to face in the future a still bigger burden. But the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's action must be to increase the Fund. If it does not increase the fund they have to take the other course, that is, to put more men on the unemployment benefit. We have had some result following on the action of the Government last year in this respect, The Government by passing the Unemployment Bill last year and trying to save 6½ millions have put up the number of unemployed men on the Insurance Fund, not by scores of hundreds, but by thousands and some of my friends say even by tens of thousands. I notice the Under-Secretary is not in the House, but he said that as a result of that policy, as a result of the Ministers' discussion on the Unemployment Bill last year, there had only been put up some 13,000 men, when, as a matter of fact, in the county of Durham, where we have not less than between 40,000 and 45,000 miners idle at the present time, our experience is that there has been put up fully 50,000. It is no use pointing to a White Paper which says that all that has been put up throughout the country—and I take it that they mean not only England and Wales, but Scotland—all that has been put up is 15,000. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us that, it means that the White Paper cannot be relied upon.
Our experience with the hundreds of men tint off since last July justifies us in saying that the White Paper is not accurate. We believe in our own county of Durham alone we have as many as that put off as the result of the powers obtained by the Ministry of Labour last year and therefore we pay no attention to that argument. I know it was promised in the Bill last year that a reduction would take place and it would be a penny on the employers contribution. Even if that had taken place, it would not have benefited the miners in this way that all that is paid both to the Health Insurance and to the Unemployment Insurance by the workmen old the employers comes largely from the workmen and not from the employers, because in the mining industry the workmen pay 87 per cent. while the employers pay only 14 per cent., so that if the promise to reduce by a penny on the employers payment had taken effect the
workmen would have had the benefit of the reduction. I want to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if it was possible to afford a reduction on any of the 3 parties who were contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the last party to obtain it ought to be the Exchequer. The very first party who ought to have been considered is the workmen. At the present time the workman is paying to the Health and Unemployment Insurance 1s. 4d. per week. The employer is said to be paying 1s. 5d. per week, but I have pointed out that. out of this the workmen pay 87 per cent. Arguing from that point alone 1s. 4d. per week is an enormous figure to the workmen when you consider what wages the men are receiving. Take my own county. The great bulk of the workers in Durham county are being paid subsistence wages of 7s. 6½d. per day and there are a lot of people who think the miners ought to meet the employers and give a reduction on that 7s. ½d. per day. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer multiplies 7s. 6½d. by 5, which represents 5 days per week—and when our people get 5 days per week they are doing exceeding well—you reach the figure of 37s. 8½d. They have that amount per week before any deductions are made, then you deduct 1s. 4d. per week as the contribution to the Health and Unemployment Insurance without any of the other deducts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that this does not leave the miner who has a family dependent upon him with a wage that will enable him to live as he ought to live.

Mr. WRAGG: Will the hon. Member explain whether the 37s. 8d. is the subsistence wage paid to underground workmen or to surfacemen?

Mr. BATEY: I am not, sure that I can answer that now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary to go into details.

Mr. BATEY: I always believe in giving information if I can.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I suggested that the hon. Member himself should not go into details.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely the hon. Member opposite, who, up to now, has maintained a most commendable silence, is entitled to one question?

2 A.M.

Mr. BATEY: The force of my argument is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking the power to reduce the contribution to the Unemployment Fund from the Exchequer. Instead of reduction taking place by the Exchequer, my argument was that the reduction should be made from the payment of the workmen into the Fund. I was arguing that the workmen can ill afford the payments they are making. I will leave that question, as there are at least two questions in this Clause that I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Under-Secretary to explain. In the first line of this Clause it says,
as from and after time fifth day of April. 1926.
We are now meeting on the 16th April. That is a fortnight after the fifth. The question I want to put is this: Does the Exchequer pay the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in the same way as the workmen and the employers; that is to say, weekly? The employer pays weekly, the workman pays weekly. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us does the Exchequer pay weekly? If they do, have they not paid for the last week and this week, so that if they paid their due, and what they ought to have paid, then this date is wrong, because they ought to have paid just as the workmen and the employers paid, and it is impossible for them to get their money back. There is another question on the same Clause. I agree with what has been said by other speakers who have spoken to-night. They have said it is difficult to understand this Clause. I really do wish that the Government, when they are drafting these Bills, would give instructions that they are to be drafted in plain simple language, so that the ordinary Member can understand them. They are drafted in such difficult language that it is not possible for the ordinary Member to understand them, and because of that I have to ask those questions.
such an amount as may he determined by the Treasury to he approximately equivalent.
What does the Chancellor mean there by those words? Because if you go on
towards the end oil the Clause, you find he tells us the amount the Exchequer will pay has been fixed in the schedule. If the amount of sixpence per person has been fixed in the Schedule, why are these words in here that the amount may be determined by the Treasury? If a trade union official were drafting a Clause like this he would riot mix it up like this. If a trade union official meant that the Treasury pay sixpence, be would say it, and he would not take the power at the same time for the Treasury to determine what the amount should be. It seems to me that one contradicts the other. We are entitled to be suspicious. It may be some

subtle way on the part of the Government to get power that we cannot understand. At the rate we are going it does seem to me as if the Bill would not be passed at Whitsuntide. If that is so, I want to know where we stand. The Treasury would then owe a lot of money to the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put":

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 83.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[2.10 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C, M.
Preston, William


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ropner, Major L.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William lamas
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Campbell, E. T.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lockor-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Willisden, E.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lode, J. dc v.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cope, Major William
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macintyre, Ian
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macquisten, F. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, Major P. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dixey, A. C.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Milne, J. S. Ward law-
Wells, S. R.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Finburgh, S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Harland, A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Bowyer.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Briant, Frank
Clowes, S.


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S.


Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Connolly, M.


Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas
Cove, W. G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H


Duncan, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Fenby, T. D.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C


Harris, Percy A.
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Hayes, John Henry
Owen, Major G.
Whiteley, W.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Allen Parkinson.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'expiration' in line 24, stand part Of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 83.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[2.18 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Radford, E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsden, E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Blundell, F. N.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ropner, Major L.


Briggs, J, Harold
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hume, Sir G. H..
Rye, F. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jacob A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Kennedy, A. R, (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col, Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cope, Major William
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Macintyre, Ian
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macnagnten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Macquisten, F. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Malone, Major P. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K P.


Dixey, A. C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Finburgh, S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Harland, A.
Pitcher, G.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Ht. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr J,
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G, H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, R. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, H. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major G.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, to leave out from the word "the", to the word "the" in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words
fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.''
The first point I should like to know is whether by the proposal put before the Committee in this Bill the fund is really beginning to pay its way apart from the accrued deficit. I remember a question being put to the Minister of Labour in this House some little time ago and the Parliamentary Secretary gave the answer. He said the present weekly income and expenditure for the Unemployment Fund were approximately £825,000 and £900,000. This was as recently as February, and it showed a deficit between the receipts and the expenditure of something like £75,000 per week. I should like to ask the Treasury Bench, if they will tell us, whether there is still a larger expenditure each week in relief of unemployment from the fund than is actually being received from the contributions each week. Another reason that makes me ask that is that there have been one or two differing figures as to what number of unemployed will be sufficiently low to cause the income and expenditure of the Fund to balance. I remember sometime ago the figure was given of 1,070,000, but in the White Paper that
was issued with this Bill the figure was given as 1,030,000.
There is a very great discrepancy of 40,000 between these two figures. In that connection I would draw the Chancellor's attention to this fact. It is very significant. At the time he comes along with this proposal he gives us no actuarial statement. Last year, when we were considering the relationship between the charge for the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pension Scheme and the Unemployment Insurance Fund, we got the Treasury to give as an actuarial statement. Whilst we have some figures, many of which have been taken from the actuary, we have no complete report from the actuary on this point, and I would like to know which is the figure we are to take—that of 1,070,000 or 1,030,000. One, of the main reasons for the Amendment we moved just now to limit the operation of this Clause is because of the effect we feel it will have on the trade of this country. We want to limit as far as possible the harm which the policy of the Government will do. It is, I believe, agreed in all parts of the House that one of the essentials for the recovery of trade and industry in this country is that we should do all we could to reduce the standing charges on industry. This was one of the things probably in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was making that speech at the Institute of Bankers' function last year,
when he promised as soon as possible to arrange for a reduction of the charge on employers in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He has on more than one occasion, since he became Chancellor to this Government, stated that an aid to the recovery of trade would be a reduction of direct taxation. One of the reasons put forward for these many raids on working class Funds is that it will enable him to reduce taxation, or at least not to increase it. We hold the view that it is far more important in working for the recovery of trade and industry to reduce standing charges.
We would therefore like to limit the operation of this Clause in such a way that as early as possible we would get a reduction of these charges on employer and employed. We have had all kinds of cheery accounts about the employment roll from the Minister of Labour, from the Parliamentary Secretary, and on occasions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we find it very difficult to find their optimism borne out by the figures we get from other Departments. The monthly returns of the Board of Trade for March, compared with March, 1925, show a decrease of imports of over £6,000,000, a decrease of exports of nearly £4,000,000, and a decrease of re-exports of nearly £750,000. There is another point we desire to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is, that if this raid goes on for a long time it will have its effect on the purchasing power of the people. Those of us who are connected with the retail trade in a fairly large way, found that as soon as the policy of the Government began to work with regard to throwing people off the Exchange, that there had been an appreciable decrease in the purchasing power for foodstuffs. I believe in my own city of Sheffield —and I take the returns in our own Co-operative Societies—the purchasing power of foodstuffs has fallen—it is down all along the line for the last quarter of 1925 and the early part of 1926. The reports of the Home and Colonial Stores and the Maypole Dairy Company—firms with a wide knowledge of the retail trade throughout the country showed the same thing. Something not unconnected with the policy of the Government in connection with its unemployment insurance policy
is the cause. We don't want this Clause to operate too long because we fear that it will not be long before the screw is put on and people are turned from benefit to the Poor Law. I have here some Poor Law Relief figures relating to Sheffield, and concerning relief to able-bodied unemployed refused benefit. They are very striking figures. Take the comparative figures which have been growing ever since the Government announced that under the working of their circular of February, 1925, they were going to screw up unemployment insurance. For the week ended 21st February, 1925, there were in Sheffield 3,951 cases of Poor Law Relief concerning 14,764 persons, at a cost of £2,615. When I get figures more up-to-date supplied to me, to 21st November, i find that the cases have been increased to 4,412 concerning 15,355 persons, at a cost of £3,869. So that the Government's policy has nearly doubled the amount per week that was being paid out in the Sheffield Union from the time when the Ministry of Labour issued its circular screwing up the administration and leading up to the Act of 1925. On 20th February. 1026, there were 5,215 cases costing Sheffield £4,543 per week.
I think myself that it would be a very great mistake to let the decision of the Government go forward for more than the period for which we propose to limit it under this Amendment. It is within my own knowledge that in Sheffield it is likely to lead to very great hardship. I am very glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an acknowledgment of the real character of the Insurance Fund. I wish we got the same acknowledgment from all the Members opposite. What is the position in Sheffield. We have had in that City, men, thrifty, the best type of craftsmen who had saved money during the period of the boom in the War and have been out of work for four years and have spent every penny they saved from their special earnings during the war, before they would deign to go for Poor Law relief. Some of these are men now being thrown out of the Exchange. These are the type of men who are being treated by the Ministry of Labour as if they were not willing to work and are being thrown off without any cause whatever. Nor is that confined to the City of Sheffield. Take one instance from the "Manchester Guardian" of 29th October,
—in which it is stated concerning Liverpool by a prominent official.
Every week we read in the press about a magnificent reduction in the unemployed figures. This is absolutely fictitious and misleading," he said. What happens is a transfer of cost from national taxes to local rates. Thus whilst in June the Government's official figures for the Liverpool district showed 30,768 persons unemployed, and that on October 5 the number had declined to 26,396, the Guardians' figures showed an increase from 22,885 on the former date to 31,264 on October 5.
My hon. Friends on these benches know that we can produce similar evidence from every great centre of industry in this country to-day. That means that in every centre of industry there is such a charge on the local poor rate that it is impossible to relieve local industry of the rating charge upon its buildings and establishments which has to he made not by the Income Tax on profits when profits are made, but has to be made all the time whether there are profits or not. It is for that reason that we also desire to limit the operation of this Clause. Take the position not only of Societies with which I am familiar—Co-operative and Friendly Societies, but the case with regard to trade unions. We are able to ascertain from the figures of the skilled trade unions the percentage of unemployment. We are able to see, from the actual trade union benefits being paid out, what is the tendency in the country. We find from those figures that these unemployed, who are members of the trade unions, are suffering in such a way that we would be false to them if we did not seek to limit the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to as short a period as possible. That is why we move this Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has made a very informative speech which goes all over again the subject we have debated for the past four hours, whilst, however, dealing only very slenderly with the actual Amendment which has been placed upon the Paper, which he was called upon so unexpectedly to move, that he thought the Amendment postponed the operation of the Bill, whereas it is to limit the operation of the Bill. I do not think that his case would be helped if we were to adopt his Amendment. The proposal would leave the
finance of the Bill quite unaffected for the next year. I would not get my reduction and saving up till the 4th April, 1927, but then there would be no provision for any State contribution of any sort or kind and I should not be allowed even to contribute the 6¾d. which I am proposing to contribute now. There would be absolutely no provision and they would be deprived of all contributions by the State and I am sure that is not the intention of hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not for a moment attribute that sinister intention to the hon. Gentleman opposite. But there is a serious side. If by any chance we got congestion of business and difficulties arose and the new legislation were not passed by the 4th April, there would be a hiatus in the Government contribution and we would be in a condition which regaled to-night.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies our pressing this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that to press this Amendment would merely limit the amount of money he can take away. He says that if during the next 12 months business became congested so that no other Bill could be introduced, a very serious position would arise. It is scarcely conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman would permit any sort of business to forestall a very necessary piece of business similar to what this would be. The Amendment was designed, I believe, with the object merely to limit or at least to defer the withdrawal of this £3,500,000 for a year. That was the belief of those who intended to support the Amendment when it came before the Committee.
I want to refer to the Chancellor's speech on the Second Reading of the fill to justify my support of this Amendment. It is perfectly true the Chancellor told us earlier in the debate that this is a great Fund, with an income of £50,000,000 per year, with borrowing powers of £30,000,000 a year, and that it was only necessary to borrow £2,000,000 last year. So he suggested that the amount he was about to withdraw was comparatively small, when we remember that the amount of money that can be borrowed by the fund is more than £30,000,000. I want to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted when reviewing the Economy Bill that the Fund was already in debt to the extent of £7,500,000 and if
we were to increase our borrowing powers because of any trade depression the amount of interest to pay annually would be a constant burden on the Unemployment Fund. The longer that burden remains the longer will the deficit be there and the more remote is the day when the floating penny will he taken away from the employers' contribution. It seems to me to be no argument at all to tell us of the colossal income under the statutory borrowing powers. It is the deficiency that the workers would like to see removed at the earliest possible moment and this Clause is certainly going to put off the day when the deficiency will be wiped away and when the Fund once again becomes solvent and the chance of the floating penny paid by the employer can be reduced. Therefore it seems to me that while last year, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who made this statement, in spite of the unemployment last year it has practically balanced though not actually balanced, It has been necessary only to draw upon the statutory borrowing powers to the extent of £2,000,000 in the fall of last year. We ought not to he tampering with the funds of any society, while we know that the society is able to pay its way.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is arguing the whole question again. If this Amendment be carried, the contribution would cease at the end of the year.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If this Amendment were carried the power of the Chancellor to withdraw the money would be deferred. Until the fund is made to pay its way and to balance itself and to prove that it is capable of carrying its burden and giving some hope to the employers who are paying a penny per person per week more than they ought to be called upon to do, this £3,500,000 every year ought not to be taken away. I am supporting this Amendment be-cause notwithstanding what the Chancellor has said as to the possibility of a difficult position arising between now and next April, I am willing to believe the House would not permit that contingency to arise. If we can limit the operation of this unnecessary Clause, I think the Amendment would be well worth supporting and well worth defeating.

3.0 A.M.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The point of the Amendment is that we want to limit the duration of the period for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to have the power to take this sum of £3,000,000 from the Unemployed Fund, and I submit with considerable confidence that there is admirable ground for that suggestion in the fact that the estimate with which this part of the Bill is concerned is admittedly made on a very speculative basis. The Bill proceeds on the assumption as the memorandum which has been circulated points out and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has pointed out this evening that the register of unemployed will he on an average 1,030,000. We have the advantage of the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and I would like to ask him for how many consecutive weeks during the last five years has the register of the unemployed been down to the figure? I should imagine that the answer is very few, and in fact I believe it has happened one or two weeks but I do not believe for any period of consecutive weeks. The whole scheme of this part of the Bill is based on that figure and when you examine the Memorandum it is apparent that a difference of 10,000 one way or the other in that figure on the register is going to make a difference of about £380,000 per annum.
In dealing with the very large figures of unemployment which unfortunately prevail at the present time it will be realised that the sum of 10,000 is comparatively small in relation to the total number of unemployed and therefore this is a variation which may very well take place and completely upset the financial estimate on which this part of the Bill is based. I think I am also right in saying if the figure is maintained at what it was on the First of March this year that would lead to the deficiency at the end of the financial year of £3,000,000 in the Fund which the Chancellor properly has said we all want to see solvent as soon as possible.
It is due to the speculation on which this Bill is based and the variation which we know constantly takes place in the number of unemployed on the register that I think in the interests of the Government itself it would be wise to limit the operation of the powers of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to a period of twelve months.

Mr. PALING: In the last two years in any event it has been no new thing to have a new Bill or a new amending Bill to the Insurance Act. That really is not detrimental to this Amendment going through. The history and experience of this business has been new amending Acts every so often, so there really is not much in that point. If the Government did limit the Clause to the end of the year it would be no hardship. They could then bring in a new Bill under new circumstances. At the end of a year's time the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find himself in a much better position. Just now he is short of money. He is having to make extraordinary efforts to get money from somewhere; this is one of the extraordinary efforts. He said an hour or two ago that one of the reasons for the shortage was that £19,000,000 had been spent on the coal subsidy; nobody dare prophesy what may occur next year. There may have to be some more found or not, but even so at, the end of next year he will be in a position to know whether there has been such an unlooked for call and he could levy under a new Bill with that knowledge. It might be that in a year's time he will not be hard pressed. Tinder the new Bill he might be able to give back the penny which is owing to the employers; I think he said this reduction is only postponed, and that it is his intention to give it at the earliest possible date. Such an Amendment gives him the opportunity perhaps sooner than he anticipates of reviewing the whole situation.
The right hon. Gentleman might accept this Amendment on the ground that during the last 12 months in particular his Government had found it necessary from their point of view, though we do not agree with them, to tighten up the regulations and make them more stringent. I believe, in his speech with which he introduced the Economy Bill he said that it was quite probable as a result of the stringent regulations put into operation that more people were off the Fund than otherwise would have been the case and, of course, it is admitted in the memorandum where it is given here in "A," "B," "C," "D," "E" and "G" and it shows what the effect of these regulations has been. For instance when the first was
put into operation on the 28th July, 1924, the number of disallowed was 27,000, on the 26th January, 1925, the number jumped to 55,000. In September after another regulation, it had jumped to 110,000. In the last week for which figures are given in 1926 the number is down to 83,000 but that is still a very considerable increase because of the regulations. It is the same in the last column; in January, 1924, the number was 20,700; in January, 1920, it is 79,400. This means that all these people have been thrown off. I would not like to suggest that the Government have put these regulations into operation simply because they are callous and do not care what happens to these people. I would prefer to think, whatever others might and do think to the contrary, that the Government have put them into operation out of sheer economic necessity. In twelve months the situation may have so altered that the Government can give their humanitarian instincts free play once again and remove these restrictions which have acted so harshly on the people; and thus bring joy back once again into the lives of the tens of thousands of people who have been thrown off the Unemployment Fund since these stringent regulations came into operation. The amendment will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity for which I cannot but believe he is really hoping, to give the employers back the penny and review the whole situation once again. He would know at the end of twelve months whether it was any longer necessary to proceed on these lines, and it would give him an opportunity to withdraw the proposals now made which I am sure he does not really wish to see put into operation if they can he avoided.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether it would be possible to introduce any new arguments and even if it were possible I am not sure whether I could even persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his position. I think I would have stood a better chance after dinner than at this time of the morning. It is very significant to see the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) present in his place opposite. He is very much interested in what I might call the employers' contribution. I do not suggest that he is interested in any selfish or
sordid manner. Just as we on this side of the House are interested in the workers' side, so he is interested in the employers' side.

Mr. HANNON: Both sides.

Mr. THOMAS: In the workers' side so far as he believes it to be the employers' side as well. That being so, I may mention that I have heard him frequently, both on the public platform and in this House, draw attention to the difficulty of commerce and industry in this country in its relation to foreign competition especially. I have heard him, and I have sympathised with him, expressing very strong views and pointing out that, viewed from the standpoint of the workman, if the employer cannot compete successfully it comes back on the workman and eventually people are thrown out of work and it has a disastrous effect on the employé He has invariably come back to this particular point of view. Efficiency, yes; get the best management possible, be as humane in your conditions as is consistent with generous business considerations, but all the time give the employer a fair chance to compete. He will develop the argument by saying that if you are going to do that you must have regard to two considerations. The first is the effect of local taxation. I think the burden of local taxation from the standpoint purely of industry itself is even a greater handicap than national taxation. It does at least mean that as far as national taxation is concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes in with a heavy hand. At all events, that is the point of national taxation. But when you are dealing with local taxation, that must be met whether there are profits or not. From both points of view the employer is anxious. The hon. Member for. Moseley has, in two recent Debates, emphasised not only the difficulty but the danger, and I remember him developing this point with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says it may be that instead of these proposals bringing in any revenue they may result in a loss if you make things so bad for the employer that he cannot earn profits, and it must re-act. That is the argument which I have summarised.

The CHAIRMAN: I presume the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is an Amendment for the limitation of the Clause only.

Mr. THOMAS: I only endeavoured to repeat what the hon. Member for Moseley said. I do respectfully point out that limitation means that it is not so hard on an employer. If he is going to be permanently hit, then I want to save him for 12 months if I can. If I can save an industry for 12 months it may be then that I have put it on the high road to recovery.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This has no effect for the first 12 months.

Mr. THOMAS: It is perfectly true to say that to-day, but if 12 months ago someone said that on the 16th April you would be discussing an Economy Bill which meant revoking a Clause in the Unemployment Insurance scheme which specifically said to the employer "you will get your penny back," I would have been the only one who would have found language to describe it. Therefore, if that was his position 12 months ago, I am justified in asking what may be his position in 12 months' time. I appeal to the hon. Member for Moseley, and I would make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench, and certainly no Labour Minister would ever think of his job. When we were there we felt we were rendering a public service and feeling equally our public position was consistent with our individual tasks. When a Minister finds himself in difficulties, that his individual interests conflicts with his public duties, he hesitates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows as well as any other Member of the House that if this Amendment is carried it will relieve him of difficulties. See what the situation will be. There would be common agreement if I were to say that 12 months from now you will find a changed political situation, because we will be there and you will be here. At least, I put it. to the House that there is the possibility of this happening. For these reasons, and many more, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interests of everything that is good in this country, to reconsider his decision: and accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 73.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[3.27 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Harland, A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby)
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, E. H. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Blundell, F. N.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain G, E. W.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rye, F. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shepperson, E. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Skelton, A. N.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Butler, sir Geoffrey
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston Spencer
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Macintyre, I.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
McLean, Major A,
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Malone, Major P. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, F. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixey, A. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wolmer, Viscount


Finburgh, S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oakley, T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wragg, Herbert


Golf, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Major Hennessy and Captain Margesson.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, w.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hay day, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause Stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 74.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[3.35 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Allan, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Ballour, George (Hampstead)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Balniel, Lord
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Renter, J. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ropner, Major L.


Blundell, F. N.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rye, F. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. w.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Campbell, E. T.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
MacIntyre, Ian
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cope, Major William
McLean, Major A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase


Cooper, J. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, F. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dixey, A. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Finburgh, S.
Nicholson. O. (Westminster)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wragg, Herbert


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Yarburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.


Harland, A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mackinder, W.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacLaren, Andrew


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harris, Percy A.
Maxton, James


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Paling, w.


Clowes, S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Connolly, M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Crawfurd, H. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Duncan, C
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown.)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Fenby, T. D.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Windsor, Walter


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Tinker, John Joseph
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney



Townend, A. E.
Westwood, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Varley, Frank B.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 74.

Division No. 163.]
AYES.
[3.42 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Harland, A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Harrison, G. J C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby)
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Blundell, F. N.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Russell, Alexander west (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Cazalet, Captain victor A.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Macintyre. Ian
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cooper, J. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, J. (Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B M.
Wells, S. R.


Dixey, A. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmonson, Major A. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.-s.-M.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Finburgh, S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frauds E.
Oakley, T.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pitcher, G.
Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kennedy, T.


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Kirkwood, D.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lee, F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Frond, F. A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mackinder, W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Cape, Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Charleton, H. C
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James


Clowes, S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morris, R. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Connolly, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.


Duncan. C,
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Fenby, T. D.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Sitch, Charles H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, W.


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Wallhead, Richard C.



Stamford, T. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Westwood, J.

CLAUSE 9.—(Substitution of one register a year f or two, end reduction of qualifying period.)

Major CRAWFURD: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Chairman, to the very low temperature, at any rate in this part of the House. I understand that physiologically there are times when the vitality is low and the human frame is susceptible to temperature, and I would like to ask your ruling as to whether anything can he done as to heating this Chamber?

Mr. THOMAS: On the same point of Order. We are ever ready to help anyone in distress. If the difficulty is temporary, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that they are getting very scanty in numbers, and could they, therefore, not choose a better atmosphere and a better place?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can only ask the hon. and gallant Member to apply to the proper quarters.

Major CRAWFURD: May I ask your ruling as to who are the "proper quarters"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Serjeant-at-Arms?

Major CRAWFURD: May I from my own place ask the Serjeant-at-Arms?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order at all.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is now six minutes to four—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Seven minutes !"]—and the Government have succeeded beyond, I am quite sure, their own expectations and I am going to say quite sincerely it is due to the fact displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no hesitation in saying that we are all disappointed at the blank refusal on his part either to listen to reason or to common sense or to save their own skins. That we are agreed upon, but when we remember the atmo-
sphere of last night and all that took place, I certainly am quite sincere when I say that the method of treating the Opposition of which we have had experience to-night is something which will at least tend to the smooth working of Parliament. Therefore, having paid that tribute on behalf of my friends as well as myself, the result of it must be something which the Government will remember. It cannot but help the Chancellor. You have got Clause 8. Surely you do not want any more. It is more than you really expected and more than you deserve. I think now we have reached a stage where I presume it is the intention to give us at least the whole of next week for the further Committee stage. We are going now to two vital questions and I put it to you that four o'clock in the morning is hardly the time to discuss the electoral law of this country. I want to draw attention to this fact that, when the Prime Minister at the early stages of this Session was asked what his intentions were in regard to the franchise, his answer was, with reference to a Bill in which we were interested, that the whole question of electoral reform was to be dealt with as one subject and dealt with comprehensively. I am sure he meant that at that particular time, but now we are here at four o'clock in the morning discussing a Clause that means absolutely taking some people off the register and disfranchising them. For these reasons and the fact that it is now four o'clock I beg to move that we report Progress.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I also appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The issue involved in Clause 9 is a matter which he cannot consider as unimportant and insignificant. It is of fundamental constitutional importance. If this Clause be passed, it will result in the disenfranchisement of some thousands of people divided into 15 or 20 categories. At this hour of the morning it is not the time when these grave matters can be discussed in the very serious spirit in which alone they can be handled, and I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to ask
us to discuss this very fundamental question of the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights of the people of this country at four o'clock in the morning.

4.0 A.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, re-inforced as it is by my hon. and gallant Friend, who I am very glad to see is leading the Liberals, has my sympathy, but I must frankly say that the Government have set before themselves the task of reaching the end of Part III. It is not from the selfish Government point of view that we are taking that course, but because Part IV, which deals with education, is rather controversial, although it does not lend itself to very lengthy discussion, but a great many sharp things can be said about it no doubt. Personally, I am very strongly in favour of always trying to brings the points of controversy in debate into the House so that the Country can follow exactly the lines which are taken. I think that will be much the best course in the general interest. How ever, if the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Gentleman would assure the Committee that the Representation of the People Clause would be disposed of in the first two hours of Monday, so as to enable the educational matters to be discussed in a reasonable manner in the course of the evening, it could be considered, but it would have to be a perfectly clear statement. It is not in the interest of the Government's carrying through their business that the arrangement should be made, but with a view to having the important interests threshed out at the right time.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman pretends to oppose our Motion to report Progress on the ground that he wants to have the best report of our speeches. It is only fair to say clearly and definitely that, whatever view he may have of Clause 9, it is perfectly foreign to the view we have. We attach the greatest possible importance and consideration to the Clause. If I were to attempt to say we could get this Clause in two hours, it would be deceiving you, and therefore I want to say quite frankly "No."

Mr. BARR: I wish to advance two reasons why we should report Progress. The
first is we are discussing an Economy Bill and are defying all economy. Shakespeare says:
There's husbandry in heaven,
The lights are all put out.
Yet look at the lights above us ! By continuing we are causing a great public expense in keeping up this institution, with all its reporters, messengers and staff. The second reason is that on the subject of the franchise we should need to go back to the time of the Reform Bill and come down to 1866 and 1867 and recall the fact that Mr. Gladstone brought in a Bill. I think it is most important to remember that he lowered the franchise to £7 and it was said he would disturb the whole order of society.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That argument is very remote from reporting Progress.

Mr. BARR: I accept your ruling, Sir, and perhaps I may have an opportunity when we discuss the franchise to give that historical review, but you will allow me to continue for the third reason. It is because these continued late sittings are disturbing the whole arrangements of this House. This morning I was unable to attend an important Committee dealing with heather burning; I wish to say that that is a burning question in 'Scotland, and altogether I feel that we ought really to have a reform of this House so as to do the work of the House and its Committees, and after all the Committee work is the most important. We should not continue longer this morning and should consider the health and general efficiency of the members of this House.

Mr. THOMAS: As we have had an opportunity to express our views, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government propose to set the whole of Part III tonight, which includes Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, or is he ready to abandon any of those?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is proposed to obtain those Clauses to-night, or this morning I should say.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" put, and negatived.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I handed in three manuscript Amendments, but I did not suppose the Government would take a Clause of such importance at this time of night. I am not quite clear which Amendment comes first.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have put the Question of Clause 9. I should have put the Question of postponing the Clause before putting that Question, so that I cannot put it now.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out the words "three months," and to insert instead therof the words "one month."
As has already been stated by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), this part of the Economy Bill is dealing with the question of the franchise. So far, harsh and unconscionable as we think the proposals of the Government have been, at any rate they have been dealing with financial matters as such, but in this part of the Bill we are, in fact, not dealing with the question of Finance at all, but are really dealing with the question of a change of the franchise laws of this country. It has always been understood that in the change of the franchise law consultation and consideration by all parties, and careful note of all the views of persons interested and affected, should be taken before legislation is introduced dealing with any such point. What has happened in this case? There is no doubt at all that this part of the Bill does directly deal with the franchise as such, and my Amendment is directed to mitigating, in some measure, the. changes which the Government propose to make in the existing franchise law. It is quite idle for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this is merely a simplification of the register for purposes of saving a certain amount of expenditure. The Clause states at the very outset:
One register only of electors shall be made in each year and the qualifying period shall be reduced from six months to three months.
At present there are two registers prepared in each year and a consequence of this Clause must necessarily be that if there be one register substituted for two registers many persons now competent to qualify as electors and be placed on the register will lose their opportunity
because of the infrequency with which the register is made up. Another matter —and my Amendment is particularly directed to this—is that the qualifying period normally is the same period as the period of registration. The period under the Act of 1918 is made up to nearly 6 months, and the qualifying period under the same Act is also 6 months. Entirely new provisions and entirely new machinery are introduced by this Clause. It is provided that the qualifying period shall be reduced from 6 months to 3 months so that instead of having a qualifying period and a period of registration coinciding as under the existing law we are to have one period for qualifying and one period for registration. That very substantially affects the franchise law.
When from the report given to us we see the saving resulting from this very drastic Amendment of the franchise law we find that, unlike some of the cases which have been before the Committee running into several millions of pounds, this change must necessarily produce only £125,000 as a whole saving. Even on the ground of economy which it has been suggested ought to justify so much that has been done here, to say that thousands of persons shall lose their electoral qualification merely in order to save £125,000 is surely putting a strain on this Economy Bill which it will not bear. It is quite obvious that the Treasury has been round to all the different Departments and demanded a reduction in their expenditure. The Home Office, seeing no other way to save expenditure have hit on this wonderful method to save in the printing of electoral lists. I am not going to make the accusation against the Government that this is an ingenious dodge to disfranchise the poorer parts of the population, who are more mobile. I do not think the Government would be so dishonourable, after having promised that a properly constituted conference should give consideration to any proposed change in the franchise law, as to come forward at quarter past four in the morning with a change in the law in order to save £125,000. Be that as it may, the result is that under the nominal desire to save £125,000 they do disqualify a large number of people, and very seriously alter the electoral rule. I propose to point out to the Committee just
what my Amendment would do and just how the law is altered and how people are affected by the changes proposed here. If the register be only made up once a year then we find that several results follow from that. In the first place, there may be an elector coming into the county or borough after the commencement of the three months' qualifying period from a different county or borough not contiguous. He will be disfranchised in respect of both Parliamentary and local franchise for 12 months. A wife, if she is of the requisite age, after the commencement of the three months' qualifying period if she moves from a different county not contiguous will be disfranchised both in respect of Parliamentary and local franchise for 12 months. Electors, both male and female, entitled to the Service franchise will be affected. A male elector attaining the age of 21 years will in certain cases be disfranchised for six months longer. A naval, military or air-force elector on the absent voters' list will also be effected if there is only a yearly qualification. Without any desire to waste time or to go into all the changes I am right in saying that in all I have detected about 25 changes of franchise which will take place. It cannot be denied that the effect of Part Ill of this Economy Measure is to work serious changes in our election law. If hon. Members opposite are willing to support it let them do so, but let them he under no delusion. They are altering electoral law and disqualifying particularly that class of person who moves about from one place to another. In these circumstances the Government cannot complain when we offer a very strenuous opposition to the Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should point out to the hon. and learned Member that if on this Amendment there is a general discussion on the Clause, we shall not be able to have that discussion on any other Amendment. That must be the final discussion on the Clause.

Sir H. SLESSER: I do not propose to deal with the matter more generally. I really did so in order to explain the purport of my Amendment. I had to deal with the general situation. The matter had not been opened to the House. I do not wish to prejudice anyone else who wishes to raise a different point.

Sir H. SINCLAIR: Would it not be convenient if the hon. and learned Member could deal with the general question on this Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These arrangements are sometimes open to misunderstanding unless it is agreed we had better confine the discussion to the Amendment.

Sir H. SLESSER: I had in mind the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) because. J understood he was going to raise certain points. If he does not object, I think it would be convenient if we were to have a general discussion because all the Amendments relate to substantially to the same point. It is a matter of indifference to me.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think they do raise the same point and that was why I warned the hon. and learned Member as to what the result of his speech would be.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: if we had a general discussion on these Amendments it would not rule out others.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is better to confine the discussion on the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Sir H. SLESSER: I was explaining the purport of the Amendment which I am moving. It seeks to mitigate in some measure the hardship of the changes which these so-called economic proposals of the Government entail. The proposal of the Government is that for the six months' residential qualification which is now laid down by Section 6 of the Act of 1918 shall be substituted three months. By itself it is quite an illusory gift because it is accompanied by the further qualification that there shall only be one annual register.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. I should like to know whether at the end of the discussion of the various Amendments you will allow a general discussion on the proposal that the Clause stand part.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like to see how the Debate developed before giving any undertaking.

Major CRAWFURD: Your predecessor in the Chair accepted the Closure Motion that the Clause stand part presumably because there have been a general discussion on a certain Amendment. If hon. Members do not know that, it seems a little hard that they should not be allowed to discuss generally on the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am only anxious to meet the Committee, but if any arrangement is come to it must be adhered to.

Major CRAWFURDM: We would adhere to the arrangement that the Amendments were discussed, and then there is a, general discussion at the end on the Motion that the Clause stand part.

Sir H. SLESSER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help us in this matter, and that the Government will allow us to have a general discussion on the Clause.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I am anxious to suit the convenience of the Committee. As this discussion has already started in regard to the whole Clause, it may meet the wishes of the Committee if the general discussion took place now, and we deal with the Amendments separately, with no general discussion on the motion that the Clause stand part.

Sir H. SLESSER: I would wish now to continue solely on my Amendment. The point I was putting, was that we should have a general discussion on the Clause after the Amendments at the end. A change in the franchise in an Economy Bill is a matter of very general importance. Apart from the particular Amendments we are asking that we should confine our discussion to the Clause.

Captain HACKING: I cannot agree to that. I have offered that we should have a general discussion now. Otherwise I can give no promise that there will be a full discussion.

Major CRAWFURD: You gave a definite promise from the Chair that the hon. and learned Member should confine himself to the interests of the Amendment Clause. I think we are entitled to know that we shall not be closured on the Question that the Clause stand part.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think we should protest against such a. statement. It is not for the Minister to say whether he will allow it or not. Surely, Captain FitzRoy, we are entitled to appeal to you.

Captain HACKING: On a point of Order. I did not make the statement now attributed to me.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member must allow me to finish my sentence before he rises. We are entitled, I submit, to the protection of the Chair. It is for you, Captain FitzRoy, to see that we get our rights on a general discussion of the Motion that the Clause stand part.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I assure the hon. and gallant Member that I shall protect him from every encroachment on his rights. As regards the point under discussion, as to whether a general discussion should take place on this Amendment, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

Sir H. SLESSER: I think it would he wise to have a general discussion.

Captain HACKING: I am sure hon. Members do not wish to misrepresent me. I did not lay down the law and say I would not allow. The words I used meant that I could not guarantee. I have not the power to say that I would not allow. That power belongs to the Chair. I thought I was helping Members opposite by saying that they could have a discussion now.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I think all the trouble has arisen over the "generous offer." There is no such thing as a generous offer in allowing us a discussion on this Clause. I have not spoken on this Economy Bill before. I cannot be accused of obstruction in any degree. I object, however, when we come to the coping-stone of the Bill, Clause 9, and trust, Captain FitzRoy, you will see that there is no attempt. on the part of the Government to prevent adequate discussion.

Major CRAWFURD: I am sure no hon. Member on this side will accuse the hon. Member opposite of any desire to curtail discussion. I trust that on the Motion that the Clause stand part we shall have a general discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that probably the best course would be to have a full discussion on this Clause.

Sir H. SLESSER: I would like to accept the decision you have come to, to take now a general discussion on this Clause. I was saying—and I will emphasise the point now—that we do attach the very gravest importance to the proposal which has admittedly as its result and effect the disfranchising of a large number of people. Even if only a small number of people were to be affected by this Measure, even then it would be a serious question of complaint. What is the position to which we have arrived? Before 1918 there was a general discussion, I believe, presided over by the then Speaker, to decide what should be the electoral rights of His Majesty's subjects. That conference resulted in agreement which found expression in the Representation of the People Act, 19l8. From that time until now no alteration, certainly no alteration in the restriction of the franchise, has ever taken place, and the House, until the appearance of this Bill—I am sure that there was not a single Member in this House, belonging to any party, who had the least idea that there was any proposal to alter the franchise until some further conference had considered the matter and reported once again. Many hon. Members will recollect that when we were discussing the question of extending the franchise to women it was said by the Home Secretary, in opposition to the Bill moved from this side of the House, that we could not alter the franchise until there had been such a conference and some decision reached. It is a constitutional practice that the franchise is not altered in the middle of a Parliament, That is not perhaps a binding rule, but it is a custom. We are therefore confronted by the Government with a proposal, notwithstanding the practice, that no alteration of the franchise does take place in the middle of a Parliament—we are confronted with electoral changes with the rights of a number of people for the purpose of saving £125,000 per annum. Here the question of economy is not seriously maintained. You are dealing with a question which was disenfranchising some 100,000 persons. We propose to give this the most stubborn resistance at every
point. I really hope that when the Government do consider this thing in all its naked horrors, they will come down to the House and say, "We do agree that what we are doing we did in all innocency. The Home Office were asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save some money and they could not do it on anything except the register. We really will drop this proposal to save £125,000 a year rather than labour under a suspicion."
Now if I may deal with the particular Amendment before the Committee, we object to any change in the franchise at all. We believe that if the register is only to be made up once a year, the mere fact that the reduction of the residential qualification is made from six months to three months is of no value at all. You are gaining nothing at all. What is the use of having a qualification if you cannot get on the register. It is merely tempting a man to a rosy paradise with iron gates. If it is to be of any value at all, it should be a one month's qualification and not a six months qualification. The reason we have chosen one month is that under the Act of 1918 there is what is called -a special qualification period. It arises under the proviso of Section six. I find in existing law there is a case where one month is. substituted for six months. Therefore we suggest that if you are going to make this change you should bring it down to the special qualifying period in the Act of 1918.
I would again emphasise that before this Measure leaves this House we do regard this matter as one of the most vital importance. I was horrified to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest that this and another Measure dealing with official marks were both to be discussed in two hours. It is with the very greatest restraint that I am not going to take two hours myself on the matter. It is only because I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the House will continue the debate and that it will he more than two hours before we finish. I would say it would even be improper to extend the franchise in a Bill dealing with economy. My point is that we have no business to alter the franchise in any way in this hole and corner manner. If the franchise is to be altered or tampered with in any way on the ground merely of saving money on.
registers, you are here introducing the undesirable novelty into the House of Commons.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the Government hope that people are not going to take it at its face value. It will be a very proper retribution if the Under-Secretary for the Home Office fails to he returned by just the number of votes he disqualifies by this Bill. I submit that we are justified in offering every possible resistance to this Measure not only for the sake of its own injustice or for the sake of the results which it must inevitably have at the present time on the franchise, but because of the precedent it is going to set up—that in future if people want to alter the franchise instead of doing so by a franchise bill they will be able to use this hole and corner expedient. I beg to move.

5.0 A.M.

Mr. FENBY: I regard with a good deal of nervousness any interference in what I, with all respect, desire to describe as a very slipshod, slovenly way of restricting the rights of adult men and women of this country who have their full share and opportunity of expressing their opinion at the Poll. I am nervous on another count. This, I take it, is a general discussion on the Clause. We are now to have a restriction, and whatever may he said from the Government bench, the proposals in this Clause will restrict the opportunity of people entitled to vote. We also have been threatened the reform of another place. We do not know what that may be. We have had the experience before. Some people think that the operation of these changes will affect rural parishes more than urban boroughs. Other people, looking at the Clause, think industrial areas will be affected more than rural ones; but having a little experience of both, I am of opinion that you cannot discriminate between the one and the other, but that every kind of constituency, whether rural or urban, will have cases of very great hardship indeed of people who, although they may be on the register, may find it a considerable cost to them to exercise the franchise because of the alteration this Clause proposes to make. There is a section of people in this country for whom we have the greatest respect, namely, the Nonconformist ministers, the Methodist
ministers, who, as a general rule, I think, change about once in three years, and they change about the 6th July. Changing as they do on that date, you are going to alter by this Section the qualification period to the end of the 1st June. You are going to make it 16 months before the minister leaving one circuit in a constituency can exercise his vote in another.
To the law-abiding and peace-loving people to whom we make an appeal always for the good government of the country, it is, I submit, a hardship. It is not right that they should be penalised in the way they would be. Then we take rural populations and. the Representation of the People's Act, where the adult male of 21 years of age became entitled to vote. In my part of the country the change takes place of the yearly servant on the 23rd November, so that the register on which he is placed having qualified on 1st June will come in on 15th October. On the 23rd November he may remove 10, 20 or 30 miles distant to follow his occupation. What will be his position when the next register conies round? He will not get a vote at all. If, under exceptional circumstances, he did happen to be on the register, I will submit that in these days of democratic Government and the wide application of the franchise that. we have under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, we have no right in the haphazard way of this kind to wipe people off the roll and make it impossible for others to exercise their vote. Let us look at the opportunities that come along. I hope it will not be regarded as wasting time. It is a very serious matter. I have not spoken on this Economy Bill so far, for I have left the very technical questions to the men absolutely qualified by experience to deal with them. But let us look at the elections. When do they occur? You are to have your register prepared on 15th October. Your qualifying period ends on 1st June. It has to be three months.
In my part of the country you have a county council election in urban and rural areas in March once in three years. Thus you have rural district councils, in an urban area you have the boards of guardians, and then in November you have the municipal elections and so you go on. In my own constituency there is a by-election going on at the moment.
By-elections will occur for various reasons and I want to press this point, that whoever speaks for the Government will remember the tremendous responsibility the Government is taking. It is a responsibility because the Government did not get their majority by purely conservative or non-political votes. A good many people not of the Conservative party voted for the Government. You have to remember that scores of thousands of people would never have given their votes to candidates who supported the Government if they had had any idea that a slip shod Amendment of this kind would be brought in. Now let us see the operation of it. A woman elector gets a qualification to vote at 30 She is not an occupier her own right because her husband is not, a Government elector. In my part of the country you have the six months' tenancy—on 6th April and 11th October. What are you going to do? You are going to prevent many women who would be entitled by age qualification under the Representation of the People Act to vote. This is not a party question; it is a constitutional question and we have got to the days when the democracy of the country will not consent to the restriction on their exercise of the franchise. We are getting to the days when people are demanding a broader and fuller opportunity for the expression of their views on local, national and imperial matters. I am not taking the point that this is early in the morning, I think we would get better legislation if we began at 9 a.m. instead of 3 p.m. What I say is that it is a wrong way to push into an Economy Bill matters affecting the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and so to restrict opportunities which people have enjoyed since then of having two registers prepared each year. This gave them a wider opportunity than they had before and now we are depriving them of the opportunity they have had since then. At a municipal election or a by election people are grumbling at the low percentage of persons on the electoral roll who vote. That is not an argument for further restricting their opportunities to vote and what we ought to do is to encourage them by making it easy for the people to exercise their vote and by giving the fullest opportunity to them to get on to the register whether local or national. Instead of that, we are taking away a boon to the workers in rural and
urban areas for which their forefathers fought—and for a very restricted franchise. We are getting back to the Conservative Government with the powerful majority of the old narrow days when government was conducted on the principle that "They should take who have the power and they should keep who can." It is a return to the restricted franchise in this miserable Economy Bill, which is tricking the poor of their franchise.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I am sorry that I do not agree with my hon. Friend who spoke last; if any party has widened the franchise, that claim ought to go to the Conservative Party.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member will open a very wide field for discussion in that.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: My point is this. I am very disturbed over the restrictions of this particular Clause and I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any action can be taken to remedy what is at present a serious evil and what this Clause will, I think, make worse. I am thinking of the widow. So long as her husband is in the household the woman gets a vote—as soon as he dies and she assumes full responsibility for the household she losses her vote. Does this particular Clause put her further back still? There is no doubt there is a, wasteful expenditure in these particular matters, and it does not finish with this House. Although we are desirous to assist the Government in every direction, new Members at least think that the Government should make the franchise as broad as possible.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Like the hon. and gallant Member who last addressed the House, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken during the passage of this Bill, so I cannot be accused of having sought to obstruct, but I do regard this particular Clause as the "blinking limit"—not to use such strong language as the hon. Member who said "Good Heavens!" The late Solicitor-General expressed some incredulity that the Government were doing this with malice aforethought. He rather thought that they would not dare to do a thing like this—that this had got slipped into the Bill by mistake while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not looking. I do not
know whether the late Solicitor-General was speaking ironically or not, or was lightened with the beatific vision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the guardian of the public liberties which seems also this morning to have affected my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). Personally I have no faith in the naivete of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I certainly do not believe he has simply placed this Clause in the middle of the Bill without a specific purpose. That purpose is not the saving of £120,000. It is the last act, the coping stone, in the whole Bill. See how beautifully it fits in ! They began by appropriating in a legal manner the Health Insurance surplus. They go for the poor there. Then they get at the funds of the army, navy and the ex-servicemen. After having seized a certain proportion of a surplus which has accrued from friendly society work and approved society work they then get after the most helpless sections of the defence forces. They are coming on to education to see what they can steal from the children. Everything has been to lift something from the poor and then they come along and they are jolly well going to take care that the poor shall have the maximum of trouble at any rate in paying us for these services. This is an old trick of tyrants in the world's history. As a matter of fact, I happened to see in last Sunday's "Sunday Times" an article by Mr. Gavin Price, a well-known journalist who will be respected on the other side of the House, describing affairs in Greece and how the present revolutionary dictator had seized and maintained power in Greece. He says:
Having all the machinery at his disposal General Pangalos found only two possible rivals, Venizelos and Papoulis, both over 65 years of age. Therefore he issued a decree that the President must be henceforth aged between 45 and 65.
First of all you find out what your opponents' ages are, then you pass a law forbidding persons of those ages to oppose you. That is just the trick that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is endeavouring to work off on the House of Commons now. There are classes of workers who will be, if not permanently, at any rate disfranchised for long periods under this Act. Let the Under-Secretary to the Home Office who is in
charge of the Bill recollect what is proposed in the Coal Commission Report. It is to be the next big part of Government business, and you are going to close down anything up to 10 per cent. of inefficient and badly managed pits and you are going to migrate roughly 10 per cent. of the colliers in the country. You are going to take them away, compulsorily emigrate them, and under the provisions of this Act you are going to disfranchise them for a period of anything up to 16 months. As I understand it, and hon. Gentlemen will correct me if I am wrong, under this Bill there is to be a qaulifying period of three months—March, April and May—and the register begins and the qualifying period ends on 1st June. If any man therefore has got a qualification for the three preceding months, on the 1st June the operations begin for placing him on the roll. This takes time. There are all sorts of operations that all take time, and you finally arrive at a period of the 15th October, which is the date on which this man who has qualified for the three months becomes on the roll and is entitled to vote. Let us suppose he "flits," as we say in Scotland, in the flitting term in May. In Scotland there are two periods in the calendar when people change their houses, a period in May and a period in November. Let us suppose that at the "May term," as we call it in Scotland, a man changes his residence. He then has lost his qualifying period and cannot have another until a year hence. That is 12 months before he can again qualify, and it is another four and a-half months before he is on the electoral roll—which means that for a period of 16½months large numbers of the working class will he disfranchised. Can anyone dispute that under the proposals of the Coal Commission anything up to 10 per cent. of the colliers will be disfranchised for that period, or at least may be disfranchised for that period? Will anyone dispute that farm servants, for instance, who, in the Scottish term, "fee" themselves—hire themselves—out for a Six monthly period for the May term will ipso facto (as the lawyers say), be disfranchised for another 16½ months? Will anyone dispute that large masses of building trade workers, men engaged in the fishing industry, men at Rosyth,
engineering workers, who for reasons of high State policy are compelled to change their residences, will not be taken off the roll and disfranchised for a period of 16½ months?
That is a very serious proposal indeed. It cannot be fobbed off or simply smuggled away in the masses of an Economy Bill. It must be justified Ai some very sound reason. The only reason up to now we have got is that it it will save a sum of money in the printing of the electoral registers. The estimate is that the saving in printing will reach the sum of about £125,000. If that is to be the financial arbitral to be used as an excuse for choking off huge sections of the working class I put it to the Government that far more than £125,000 can be saved if they will abolish voting altogether. Set up your Mussolini. Let us abolish your demoncratic system of Government, announce to the people of this country that you refuse to accept the will of the majority. I do not believe in minority Government of any kind. I believe in majority Government so very strongly that I do beg of the Government to consider seriously the vital issues involved in this proposal.
There are vital issues here. If the Government said we are justified because of a saving of £125,000 and a possible cancellation of, shall we say, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 200,000 workers from the electoral work, then you are opening the door to a final struggle between Fascism and Communism in this country. Both refuse Parliamentary majority government; both declare for rule by the minority, and it seems to me the greatest ironic joke that I have seen in polities in this country that a Conservative Government at this time of day coming forward and saying that in the interests of a few thousand pounds we are going to wipe off certain sections of the working class from the roll to declare against rule by the majority in this country. I have not exaggerated the position. Those who would not believe him would not at the bar of history get off by justifying this legislation this morning by a little more mocking laughter. Is it right, is it not true that certain sections of the working class under this Bill will be disfranchised, and if it were true that all classes would be disfranchised, it still
would be no justification. It is a defiance of democracy. It means the opening of machinery of government in this country for Facisim and Communism. I stand for neither. I believe in democracy I believe in rule by the majority, and I propose to take every possible step to prevent the Government from getting this Clause. However the Government may spend £10,000,000 on the Super-tax, or give relief to the extent of £10,000,000, you are not entitled to prevent the people at the next time of asking from a free, open ballot. I dispute your right, having got a majority by Zinovieff letter tricks to come to this House—

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with the next Election, not the last.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was only making a passing reference to the last Election. Whatever conduct is practised in this House by way of relief to the rich or bleeding the poor—there may be some constitutional justification for it, you have a majority, and the majority is entitled to rule—you are not entitled to jerrymander the voting lists. You are not entitled to prevent the people of this country from ooffing you out at the earliest constitutional opportunity.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said he hoped some of us would point out to him if he exaggerated. I propose to point out to him that not only he, but those who have been opposing this Clause have been exaggerating very seriously. What is the good of being on the register unless you have a chance of voting at an Election. There are two registers at the present time made in the course of the year—one register in April and the other comes into force in October. The October register is the one effective register. On that register which then comes into force every General Parliamentary Election has been fought for over 30 years. I believe it applies to every municipal election, county council elections and to district council elections. The only elections to which this April register applies are occasional by-elections, so that the effective register for the purpose of an election is the October register. The effect of this proposal is not to decrease but to increase the number of people who are to be
put on the effective register. All this talk about the number of people left off is absolute misrepresentation. With regard to economy the amount saved is not very great. But you have not only to consider the economy of the State; you have also to consider the large amount of money, time and trouble in compiling -the registers. By the proposal you are reducing them by half. It inflicts no hardship on anyone except in the case of a by-election. It increases the number of people who are eligible to vote at a General Election by reducing the period from six to three months. It will not deprive people, but will give more working men a chance of getting on the register than now.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know who is responsible as far as the Government is concerned and intend to reply, but I am going to ask whoever replies for the Government to tell us before the Division takes place whether in the opinion of their advisers they concur in the extraordinary statements that we have just heard. In a spirit of generosity that always characterises my methods of debate, I can only say that I account for the extraordinary defence we have just heard by the fact that it is 5.30 in the morning. Mr. Hope, I, like my hon. Friend, am not concerned in the least to say that it is a large or a small amount, but I am concerned in trying to bring home to Members that this Clause, this policy and this action can have, unless they are very careful, more far-reaching effect than any thing yet introduced in this House. It is no secret that there are two policies appearing to-day in the ranks of the working classes of this country. Whether hon. Members believe it or not at least I have no hesitation in saying there is in existence today in this country and growing up in every trades union in the country a. strong, determined body of men quite conscientious, quite honest, quite sincere in their views, but who are so "fed up," as they say, with 1what they call the failure of the Parliamentary machine that they are using all their energy and all their power, quite honestly and deliberately, to break the Parliamentary method and revert to industrialism. No one will dispute that. Whilst I am frequently publicly
and inside my own organisation pooh-poohing the strength of these people, I am forced to admit that they are not only a strong body, but a determined body. That does not mean that I think they are right; on the contrary, I think they are hopelessly wrong, because I believe they are wrong and their methods are dangerous, because I believe it would be ruinous to this country if that policy was to succeed. I am at least entitled to ask Members on the other side of the House who have more interest in this matter than I have —[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—I do not mean in any personal sense, but in the sense that you always claim, as against us, that you are the Constitutional party. I do not speak personally not in the individual sense, but I do claim to have dope something to stop tills kind of propaganda, both inside the trade union movement and in the interest of the country generally. When I take that attitude, I try to be logical, and I do it on this ground I say: "You have no right to condemn the Parliamentary machine unless it has been given a chance. You have no right to say Parliament has failed until it has been proved to be a failure. You have no right to strike and cause all the misery and suffering that follows from a strike for an object that can be obtained by using your intelligence: by recourse to the ballot." That is my logic. I do not apologise for it. That is my conception of Parliamentary government, and I believe it to be essential to maintain this country and preserve it. If you agree with me that this is necessary and desirable, I must prevent any of these people or any one of those who think like them saying "Yes, we believed with you. We wanted to share your methods; we believed in the Parliamentary Institution, but we are denied the right. We are prevented from following your advice and having recourse to the ballot. We are now being denied by those who are the Government of the day to give expression to our views, and there is no alternative to our method." They are entitled to say that. So far I have assumed we are on common ground. The right lion Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) said that this Bill deprives nobody of a vote, but actually gives them better facilities. That is a most extraordinary proposition. The
Government have already said: We will give effect to the Coal Commission report. You are in error in assuming that 10 per cent. is going to be the solution of the miners' problem.
Anyone who knows anything about that problem know quite well that it will be nearer 30 per cent. than 10 per cent. Take the basis of 10 per cent., and assume a transfer takes place as between South Wales and Yorkshire. Supposing there is a by-election in a constituency to which a large number of men are transferred, will it be denied that these men, compulsorily transferred by the recommendations of a Royal Commission, are by this Bill prevented from exercising their franchise? That cannot be. We know there are by-elections. We know they do take place and will take place. I am merely putting the point that if they do take place, then it must be admitted that this Clause will have the effect of disfranchising electors.

Major O. STANLEY: The effect is that in any election which takes place between October and April, there will be an increase and in any election which takes place between April and October, there will be a decrease.

Mr. THOMAS: Let us see where we are going. If you are right, this emerges, that for the purpose of obtaining £100,000 you are going to admit to the constituents that you may disfranchise a large number you do not know who they are. The Government are banking on the possibility that no future general election can take place except at a certain period and all this is to be secured under the guise of an economy bill, and the saving of £100,000. I am bound to say there is something more behind it than £100,000. If it was only a question of £100,000 that was involved, I would say "Go on; do what you like". I hope, even at this hour of the morning this House of Commons will not make a mistake, will not give a lever, a handle, a power to people, that they will regret the consequence of.
I look upon Communism as a danger to the World. I took some risks in saying so in front of them, but I think that in its consequences there is only one thing that is as bad as Communism and
that is Facism. Both of them would be a danger to this country, and this Clause gives the lever to both. This Clause lets them fight for their hand and will give them an opportunity of weakening the Parliamentary institution. You can sneer at us, you may pretend that your constitutional power if it suits you will prevent that; you can say what you like about us. I am making a stand, and I repeat it is not on the ground of economy or to save a sum of money but because I believe as a loyal citizen of this country that I must do the best I can for the constitution of this country that I oppose the proposal.

Captain HACKING: I think that the Debate has mainly ranged round questions as to whether the provisions which are suggested in this particular Clause will give better facilities or worse facilities. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has built up all sorts of horrible things that would happen if the facilities are going to be worse under the provisions of this Clause.

Mr. FENBY: On a point of Order. The point I wish to make is that under a Clause of this Bill it is provided that it shall not apply to Northern Ireland. Does that mean that a section of Members in this House will be elected on a different franchise from other sections?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the point of Order. It was the hon. Member's interpretation of the Bill.

Captain HACKING: The answer is quite a simple one. Ireland has her own Parliament, and is on a different system now, and when we change our system, as I hope we will be able to, we shall be on the same system as Northern Ireland. As I was saying, the right hon. Member for Derby suggested all sorts of horrors that will take place if the facilities to be given under this Clause prove to be worse instead of better.

Mr. THOMAS: I mentioned possible dangers.

Captain HACKING: I do not want to exaggerate, so I will say possible dangers. If I can prove to him that the facilities will be better, he would be of opinion that he would have a good deal better control over the people he wishes to help?

Mr. THOMAS: If you can show me that no people will be disfranchised I will be satisfied. It is not sufficient to say there will be a few more added, but that a few would be disfranchised.

6.0 A.M.

Captain HACKING: I cannot prove that there will not be some people disfranchised, but on the other hand the franchise will be given to other people and on the balance which is, after all, the most important thing, there will be greater facilities given than there were previously. I do not think I need really develop the arguments in connection with that point, because they were put so clearly by the right hon. Gentleman who gave a good accurate account of the position of the General Elections since 1900. I think he said that in the last 30 years, since 1900, the General Elections have never been fought on the spring register, but on the autumn register and since 1900 there have only been 24 by-elections held in the summer and very few, probably not 4 per cent., of the persons whose registration will be deferred by the abolition of the spring register could have voted in a Parliamentary Election on that register. But there is no doubt that advantage will be given under this Clause to a great number of people whose being placed on the register will be accelerated. As far as the actual voting is concerned, the annual register, the register qualification period is three months instead of six months. If General Elections are held in the winter—and there are probabilities that elections in the future will be held in the winter, if one works back on an average of a period of years —if that is so, undoubtedly there will be benefits to a larger number of persons than are penalised by this Clause. If there was a General Election in the spring the general population would not benefit but there are other elections besides General Elections and it is the practice for these elections in this country to take place on the autumn register and therefore if we are going to abolish a register at all for the sake of economy it is natural that we should abolish the spring register and not the autumn register. A point was made about economy being impossible of achievement and the figure of £100,000 was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby.

Mr. THOMAS: I said I attached no importance to it.

Captain HACKING: That sum is much too small. The actual money saved will be £250,000, £125,000 of it to the Government, and £125,000 to the local authorities. That I think will prove to the right hon. Gentleman that we are at any rate considering economy to a larger extent than he thought.

Mr. THOMAS: It is not so much a question of being on a register. It is a question of having facilities to vote. Do you undertake on behalf of the Government, to pay the expenses of these people who are transferred?

Captain HACKING: I cannot, of course, give a pledge of that character. I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He happens to be in his place now and that question could be put to him.

Mr. THOMAS: The question I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. We urge in opposition to this Bill that it will disfranchise certain people. That is admitted on both sides. But it is also admitted on the Government side that it will increase the advantages to a great number. Therefore it follows that the Government are not so much concerned with getting people on the register as in getting people facilities to vote. In the event of a transfer of people, are the Government prepared to pay their expenses to the place from which they are disfranchised?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that would be prepared to answer that question without consideration at more leisure, but it is a matter which on a later stage of the Bill I shall be glad to answer.

Captain HACKING: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby went into ancient history, back to 1900, on the question of the register. Perhaps he has also forgotten that previous to 1918 there was only a single register. It is hardly a fair comparison to make. There are other things that have to be taken into consideration, and when we consider what has happened in the last few years, and think there is a probability of elections taking place at the same time of the year in the future, we are going not only to effect a large economy, but also to give additional facilities to the people of the
country. Surely it is worth while for the Government to undertake that in this Bill.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is not there a question of removals?

Captain HACKING: We have considered everything in regard to that. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will realise now that we are not committing such a terrible sin as he thought we were. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) found fault with making the change from six months to three months and instead moved an Amendment to limit it from three months to one month, so that actually if his Amendment is carried it will make a greater change than the change that we have proposed.

Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that such a change interfering with the principle of voting ought to be dealt with in a larger measure of electoral reform in conference.

Captain HACKING: The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals will make that a larger change still. He also said we were making a drastic change in making the qualifying period different from the period of registration. His Amendment makes the position more serious. There is one thing which he says which I was very glad to hear—that he was a good Conservative—and that was his reason for suggesting one month. He said that in the Representation of the People Act of 1918 one month was in existence, but he overlooked the fact that that proviso was only in connection with naval or military voters and it has therefore no connection with the present position. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is more convinced than he was about the chief problems I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about the points and I hope the Committee will now reject this first Amendment and thus close the general discussion.

Mr. SPENCER: I fail to see how, having about five months possible duration of a waiting period is going to facilitate a man coming on to the register. From my calculations the maximum period that a man has to wait at the present time to get on the register is 11 months. If this Bill becomes law it is possible for a man to come into a dis-
trict in August and not get on to the register for effective purposes until the October following. Therefore, you are extending the possible waiting period from 11 months to 14 months. If that is making it easier for men to exercise their franchise, it passes my comprehension how it is going to succeed. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) with regard to the extra waiting period has not been effectively answered by the Under-Secretary. I am quite certain that Members on this side of the House cannot allow this to go without forcing a Division. We are perfectly justified in laying down the principle which makes it as easy as possible for electors to get on the register so that they might exercise their franchise. This Bill is doing all it is possible to make it much more difficult.
I listened very patiently to what the Under-Secretary said, and I was hoping he would make it clear in what way he was going to make it easier for men to get on the register, and that it was going to be shorter in duration to get on the register. At the present time a man can live in a district for seven months, and then get on the register, and in either a by-election or a municipal election he can vote. Does anyone say that he will be able to do so under the provisions of this Bill? Unless he is there four months before September it will be almost impossible for him to get on the register until 14 months have elapsed. Therefore, if you are giving some slight concession to certain people you are making it very difficult for others. Is not that disfranchising a great number of men? This is not the time when we should seek to disfranchise men. I would like to support the argument of the right hon. Member for Derby, in which he referred to the possibility of what he termed "direct action." If anyone should stay their hand with regard to a step of that character it is the Conservative Government and hon. Members on the opposite benches. They have always stood in the country for constitutionalism, appealing to the electorate and trusting the issues of this country to the electorate. If you take away the franchise of men and make the period of qualification as long- as possible you will create dissatisfaction amongst unfortunate people who from time to
time have to pass from one centre to another. Therefore, I feel certain that we ought to pause before this Bill is passed into law. I am surprised that the Government should do this kind of thing at the present time. There is enough unrest in the country without the Government adding to it, and the only logical effect of this Bill can be to put into the hands of those who are the enemies of Parliament a weapon for fighting constitutional methods.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: There are many extraordinary features about this Debate, but none has been more extraordinary that the complacency with which the Under-Secretary appeared to think that he had convinced hon. Members on this side of the House. There is one small point with regard to which I am not quite sure, that the Under-Secretary may not be right. With regard to the representation of Northern Ireland, the Act of 1920 says, in Section 19:
The election laws and the laws relating to the qualification of Parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to elections of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.
At that time the law governing elections in Northern Ireland, as in Southern Ireland, was the law of 1918. That law established the two annual registers with a qualifying period of six months. What change has been made?

Captain HACKING: The hon. and gallant Member is referring to the 1920 Act. I have the 1922 Act. It is quite clear that there is only one date. The end of the qualifying period is 15th July, and the register comes into force on the 15th December. Under the principal Act it was 15th July and 15th October.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does that only apply to Northern Ireland?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Northern Ireland. It is the Schedule of the 1922 Act. There was in that Act a Schedule for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Returning to the more fundamental issue, there is one vital and fundamental admission made by the hon. Gentleman which
really granted us the whole of our case. He said certain people were being disfranchised; and on the other hand that we are giving the franchise to new people. I am not saying there is not a very good case for giving the franchise to those people. That is a matter for consideration on its merits and does not form a case for depriving other people of the rights they already possess. It is surely the duty of the House of Commons to protect the people first and foremost in the enjoyment of their existing constitutional rights. It has been stated in the debate to-day that because all elections for the last 25 years have been on the autumn register, the same thing is likely to happen in the future. As the right hon. Gentleman for Derby pointed out that, just previous to this series of winter elections there was another series of elections in the summer. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman assumes that all elections are to be in the autumn. By the law of averages it is likely we may in the future have elections in the summer. As a matter of fact a number of things may change. For example, there is a proposal under very serious consideration to begin the Session in the autumn.
It is quite clear that large numbers of people will be disfranchised at by-elections and also at local elections such as the Scottish Education Authority. All these matters do affect the fundamental rights now possessed by the citizens of this country. These arc matters affecting their rights of representation. In this House we are their representatives and therefore we have a very special and direct responsibility for guarding these rights which the people now possess and preventing this Government filching them away. There is a large number of whole categories of people who will lose the vote, for 16 months. The late Solicitor-General dealt with them, and read out a list to the House. I find there are 10 separate groups and categories of people who will be definitely disfranchised by this proposel. In foreign countries, France and in many other countries, you have a system whereby people who have been treacherous and committed high crimes against the State are sentenced to deprivation of their civil rights, and you are going to take a certain number of innocent and law-abiding citizens of this country and sentence them
to deprivation of their constitutional rights.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says he is going to save £250,000 by this Measure. I think that is arguable. The proposal will be especially bad in Scotland, where the date of the removal term is May 28th, and it will act with very great hardship. There is another innovation which has only yet been touched upon indirectly and that is the reduction of the qualifying period, the importance of which lies not so much in the actual reduction of the period, but in the abandonment of continuity, because at the present time the six months succeed each other. I hold in my hand the opinion of an authority from which the right hon. Gentleman the late Solicitor-General has already quoted and this authority on this particular point says:
The break in the succession of the qualifying periods will—

(a) Render very difficult the detection of duplicate entries, as the tracing of successive residential and occupational qualifications will become almost an impossibility.
(b) Render inquiries as to particulars of removals—particulars essential in the compilation of the electors' lists—so difficult and lengthy as virtually to preclude attempts to obtain such information.
(c)Necessitate the employment of a greater amount of casual labour, and consequently lessen the efficiency of the work performed."
thus reducing the amount of economy estimated by the Minister.
The third point therefore is that to abandon the continuity of the qualifying period must have a disastrous effect on

the efficiency of the work of compiling a register and must affect the accuracy of the result. I ask the House to remember what these arrangements are that we are invited to tamper with. These are the arrangements which have been come to as the result of a Speaker's Conference. in 1916 and 1917. They were based on the report of that conference. One of the important points in this report is the registration of electors. No fewer than four recommendations are made on this question, and one of the most, important is the revision of the register every six months. The report was agreed to by Members of all parties since it was a great national effort made to reach a compromise. You ought not to go back on that report or fundamentally to alter it unless you get the permission of all the parties to that agreement by referring it to another Speaker's Conference. Another Speaker's Conference has been promised. But the Government preferred instead to bring in this change in a hotly contested highly controversial party Measure—a Measure which is opposed by the Members of the House who represent a majority of the votes cast at the last election. Members may laugh, but that is an undoubted fact; a very relevant fact when considering a question of the franchise, and it would certainly he a constitutional offence to alter the compromise without referring the question in the first place to a Speaker's Conference again. Therefore I beg to support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words "three months" stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 64.

Division No. 164.]
AYES.
[6.35 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cope, Major William
Harland, A,


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Harrison, G. J, C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balniel, Lord
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dixey, A. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Briggs, J. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.-s.-M.)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Finburgh, S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker B.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Campbell, E. T.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Goff, Sir Park
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Loder, J. de V.
Pilcher, G.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Power, Sir John Cecil
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frast


Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacIntyre, Ian
Ramsden, E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macquisten, F. A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Malone, Major P. B.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells S. R


Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Rye, F. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Skelton, A. N.
Wragg, Herbert


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Oakley, T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Penny, Frederick George
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


drown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in No words page 8, line 5, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that this Sub-section shall not come into operation until six months after the issue of a writ summoning a new parliament.

No words of mine are necessary after the speech I have just made.

Question put,"That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 134.

Division No. 165.]
AYES.
[6.4m. 3a.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Sir Archibald Sinclair.


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.



NOES.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby)
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brigge, J. Harold
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Campbell, E. T.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Lister Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Loder, J. de V.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cope. Major William
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
MacIntyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wells, S. R.


Dixey, A. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Wise, Sir Fredric


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W, J.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Finburgh, S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wothington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wragg, Herbert


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Oakley, T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George



Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that it shall be the duty of the registration officer to compile quarterly supplements to the register of electors, the first such supplementary register to come into force on the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.
This is a very extraordinary Bill brought forward under pressure by the Government. Before its conclusion is reached we should like to make another endeavour to eave some little of the liberties which have been taken away. The Bill comes under the guise of economy, and tinkers with the franchise. There should be a supplementary list published every three months to do something to preserve the machinery of registration. As I promised not to speak any more on this matter, I shall content myself with formally moving the Amendment. This supplementary list would
not be a costly business, and would preserve continuity.

Captain HACKING: The effect of this Amendment would be to make four registers in, the year instead of one.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The proposal simply means that what will be published will be a list placed in a public place with the names of those persons who qualified in the preceding three months.

Captain HACKING: Any other charges which were made during the quarter would have to be given and the effect would be that there would be four registers, and as the cost of compiling the register is twice the cost of printing it, and as this is an Economy Bill, we cannot accept it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 136.

Division No. 166.]
AYES.
[6.54 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T, D.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)





NOES.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Alexander, Sir Wm.(Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby)
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ramsden, E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Balniel, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remer, J, R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blundell, F. N.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, A, Stewart


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Howard, Capt. Hon, D. (Cumb., N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
MacIntyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, M)
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixey, A. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wolmer, Viscount


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Finburgh, S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Goff, Sir Park
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilcher, G.
Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil

Motion made, and Question put, "That The Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 65.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[7.1 a.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Betterton, Henry B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W, Derby)
Balniel, Lord
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. N, Skipton)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Renter, J. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chaster, City)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth S.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W,


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lister Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lloyd, Cyril E- (Dudley)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Courtauld, Major J, S.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macintyre, Ian
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
McLean, Major A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixey, A. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Finburgh, S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wolmer, Viscount


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Wragg, Herbert


Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Karris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment of Ballot Act, 1872, as to division of register at Polling Station).

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
There are times when one is entitled to appeal to one's foes, and I want to make an appeal to the Government. Their
supporters have supported them magnificently. Having regard to the progress that has been made, I would say, sincerely, in the spirit in which the whole Debate has been carried on, that it is due to the Government now that they should agree to report Progress and let their supporters have bathe and breakfasts and resume later on.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government will accept the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman in terms which are fully in accordance with the good humour which has characterised this Debate.

Committee report Progress to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Sir Laming Worthington-Evans.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Seven o'Clock a.m. Friday, 16th April.